Question: Is drinking milk healthy for humans?

Title: Milk and other dairy products are in fact healthful and beneficial for humans Content: Milk has been a part of the human diet for centuries. It is the best drink to consume for re hydration besides water. Milk deficiency can lead to osteoporosis. Milk supplies the body with a good source of calcium and vitamin B and D. Milk is good for the skin which is why it is an ingredient in most lotions. In addition, it provides protection for the enamel on teeth and prevents decay.

Title: Milk and other dairy products are in fact healthful and beneficial for humans Content: Counter Argument... 1)Cow milk may have active hormones, but so do other things that we eat such as burgers and chicken. It may be disgusting to you but that doesn't automatically correlate to any means of harm to the body. 2)Milk does have magnesium along with vitamins A and B, zinc, riboflavin, carbs, and protein. 3) Milk high content of water molecules actually makes it beneficial for it is a good source of re hydration. Drinking milk is healthier than drinking unnatural juice, soda, and iced tea. 4) Cow milk has feces and bacteria that is destroyed during the pasteurization process. Milk is not supposed to be placed at room temperature to begin with because to much time out of the fridge can cause the milk to be tainted. Milk should always be in the preserved in low temperatures which is why supermarkets always have milk in the cooler. 5) The claim that the cholesterol in mil is equivalent to 53 slices of bacon is far fetched. Eating two strips of pork bacon is unhealthier than consuming three glasses of milk. Milk contains about 20mg of cholesterol. 53 strips of bacon far exceeds that. In fact the Teagasc Dairy Products Research Centre has conducted recent research on the utility of milk in neutralizing the cholesterol content in the body. Sources 1)organicfacts.net

Title: Drinking cow's milk is usually detrimental to human health. Content: Dairy milk typically consists of carbohydrates, fat, protein, vitamins, minerals, and enzymes. None of these are particularly harmful to humans. According to milkfacts.info, "milk is 87.7% water, 4.9% lactose (carbohydrate), 3.4% fat, 3.3% protein, and 0.7% minerals (referred to as ash)." Yes, milk is 88% water, and there is nothing else in milk that is specifically harmful. The USDA claims that milk is prime source of potassium, calcium, and vitamin D. Each of these is very important for bone health. (webMD.com)

Title: Milk and other dairy products are in fact healthful and beneficial for humans Content: Great debate, Pro. Let's begin: "Drinking milk is healthier. .. " Well, juice is actually healthy. You can find many dairy products, but there is not much citrus fruit in the world. Therefore, juice is more healthier than a milk. 87% is milk. My round two arguments have not been refuted. Therefore, my argument stands. You did not refute about allergies, sugar, and saturated fat. In response to the cholesterol argument, this was from rense. com. Technically speaking, bacon does not have more cholesterol. I believe that you are confusing it with sodium. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Agree before: Pro Agree after: Pro Conduct: Pro Spelling and Grammar: Con Convincing Arguments: ? ??

Title: Is milk really healthy? Pro-yes, Con-no Content: "One of the main arguments for USDA recommendations is that drinking milk or equivalent dairy products will reduce the risk of fractures. But in fact there"s very little evidence that milk consumption is associated with reduced fractures," Willett tells WebMD. (1) This is the biggest thing I hear about milk, is that if you drink milk you will help strengthen your bones. With their being little evidence that this is actually true I will toss this up to hype. This has always been on TV and in magazines. And think of all those adds with stars and the "milk mustache", this is just s ploy to sell something plain and simple. "But many scientific studies have shown an assortment of detrimental health effects directly linked to milk consumption. And the most surprising link is that not only do we barely absorb the calcium in cow"s milk (especially if pasteurized), but to make matters worse, it actually increases calcium loss from the bones." (2) How ironic is it that the very thing people tell you to drink to increase your calcium intake is actually causing you to lose calcium. This is a precious thing that is needed in our bodies and if drinking milk causes you to lose it, then I would say stop drinking milk. Milk acidifies in the body. Our bones/calcium in our bodies work to get rid of that. So instead of helping our bodies do that it is forced to neutralize the acidity of the milk that we just drank. After looking at some of these facts I would say that there are other ways to get calcium in our bodies than just drinking a glass of milk. (1)http://www.webmd.com... (2)http://saveourbones.com... (3)

Title: Milk and other dairy products are in fact healthful and beneficial for humans Content: Good luck, Pro! Counter Arguments 1) Okay. .. what you basically said is true. No counter arguments can do that. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Arguments 1) However, cow milk, what we drink, has 59 active hormones, which is very disgusting to think about. 2) Cow milk is useless because they lack magnesium. 3) 87% of milk is water, which means there are less than 13% of real milk. 4) Cow milk has feces. The feces are a major source of bacteria. The bacteria doubles when you leave it at room temperature for 20 minutes. 5) The cholesterol in three glasses of milk is equal to 53 slices of bacon. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sources 1) . http://www.rense.com... _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Additional Comments Good luck, Pro! This might be your first win, but I'm still going all-out!

Title: Milk and other dairy products are in fact healthful and beneficial for humans Content: This basically summarizes my arguments and counter arguments: "Dairy foods can be high in fat and, therefore, calories. Low-fat dairy foods, such as skim milk and low-fat cottage cheese, have had most of the fat skimmed off and they can still be good choices for calorie counters. But all the good stuff, like cheese, ice cream, and butter, can be diet-busters. " "In higher fat dairy products, most of the fat is saturated fat. Diets high in saturated fats can raise your cholesterol levels and increase your risk of heart disease. " "Dairy products contain lactose, a type of milk-sugar that many people have difficulty digesting because they lack the digestive enzyme lactase. If you can't digest lactose, eating dairy products can give you a rumbley tummy or worse. Lactose intolerance affects between ten and twenty percent of the population. You are much more likely to be lactose intolerant if you are of African, Asian, or Native American heritage. Lactose-reduced dairy products or lactase tablets can allow lactose intolerant people to eat dairy with fewer difficulties. " "Although cow's milk allergies are fairly rare in adults, many babies and small children are allergic to milk, and experience symptoms including ear infections, skin rashes, and digestive problems. Avoiding dairy products can alleviate symptoms. " _________________________________________________________________________________________________ . http://nutritiondiva.quickanddirtytips.com... www. formerfatguy. com/articles/dont-drink-milk.

Title: Drinking cow's milk is usually detrimental to human health. Content: R2 ArgumentsI. IntroII. Point by pointA. FatB. Saturated fatC. IGF-1D. CholesterolE. CaseinF. LactoseG. Bacteria endotoxinsIII. ConclusionIV. SourcesI. IntroMilk is detrimental to human health for many reasons. Excess fat, saturated fat, IGF-1, cholesterol, casein, lactose, and bacteria endotoxins.II. Point by pointA. FatFat contains 9 calories per gram. Protein and carbohydrates contain 4 calories per gram. [0] Fat due to its high caloric content can lead to over eating and obesity. Obesity is a risk factor for cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. Excess dietary fat can also lead to intramyocellular lipid buildup, which in turn can lead to insulin resistance. B. Saturated fatSaturated fat can increase blood viscosity forcing your heart to work harder and leading to lethargy. Furthermore, saturated fat can break down into the bad cholesterol, LDL, low density lipoprotein. C. IGF-1IGF-1, insulin like growth factor 1 increases risk for cancer by promoting cancer cell growth.D. CholesterolCholesterol is associated with degenerate disease.E. CaseinCasein can cause an immune system response that destroys pancreas cells and leads to type I diabetes.F. LactoseMany people of the world are lactose intolerant. G. Bacteria endotoxinsBoth alive and dead bacteria release endotoxins which can cause an immune system response. III. ConclusionFor many reasons, milk is detrimental to human health. IV. Sources0. http://www.mayoclinic.org...

Title: Drinking cow's milk is usually detrimental to human health. Content: Resolution:Drinking cow's milk is usually detrimental to human health. Bop:Burden of proof will be upon the instigator. Structure:R1 Acceptance and definitionsR2 ArgumentsR3 RebuttalsR4 Defend your argument against opponent's round three rebuttalDefintionsCow "cow 1 (kou)n. 1. The mature female of cattle of the genus Bos." [0]Milk" 1. A whitish liquid containing proteins, fats, lactose, and various vitamins and minerals that is produced by the mammary glands of all mature female mammals after they have given birth and serves as nourishment for their young." [1] Thanks in advance for accepting. Sources0. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Title: Dairy is Bad For Your Health Content: I accept :D

Title: Is milk really healthy? Pro-yes, Con-no Content: Vitamin D is in the sun. That is a fact. Vitamin D is in Milk. Also a fact. You need Vitamin D. Most people don't get enough Vitamin D from the sun, so you must drink milk to obtain those Nutrients. Vitamin D is also in all bones and their marrow so you tell me why we don't need milk in our bodies which as stated previously, has vitamin D

Title: Is milk really healthy? Pro-yes, Con-no Content: Milk contains vitamin D which as everyone knows is essential to bone growth and strength, maybe there isn't much evidence to support the fact that milk makes your bones stronger because we already have more than enough to support it. The fact that your even arguing whether or not milk is healthy for you shows that you shouldn't even be debating this topic. When babies are born all they drink is milk, and that's because it is essential to life

Title: Is milk really healthy? Pro-yes, Con-no Content: Milk has been directly related to destressing people. It is really insane to fight over it... if you love milk and it really suits you - i.e you are tolerant to it and you love the taste and there is no allergies related to it as some may have, then go ahead and enjoy this yummy and health giving drink.on the other hand if you hate it don't have it. it is simple as that. and if you think that milk isn't beneficial to you're health you must be on the wrong planet or thinking of some other kind of milk

Title: Is Chocolate Milk Better than White Milk Content: Stating that chocolate milk tastes better is purely opinion. People do indeed drink chocolate milk more than "that other milk" you describe it as, but this does not make it healthy to humans. To be complete with this debate, I'll be covering all aspects of chocolate milk, including: Its elemental buildup, its usage today, and how it influences the human body. After graphing the general overview of chocolate milk, I will then compare it to the overview of "that other milk". Sound good? Good. The most common way chocolate milk is made, is by taking regular whole milk (or "that other milk" by your preference) and blending that whole milk with a powder (typically cocoa) and sweeteners such as sugars. Both "that other milk" and chocolate milk come from the same cows, contrary to some people's beliefs, but the key difference between the two is that chocolate milk is richer in sugars and carbohydrates than whole milk is. Yes, we are taught that carbohydrates are used as the basic unit of energy storage, but there are different types of carbohydrates, the most unhealthy being sugar. A small amount of consumption of these sugars won't have a significant amount of harm to your body, but large amounts can lead to obesity and diabetes in its consumers, and eventually heart diseases and cancers. (Source: http://www.self.com...) While most people from the Pro stance of this topic do think that flavored milk is tastier, it is not healthier, similar to most things we eat. We can continue to drink chocolate milk, but this will only damage us as time passes. It is much safer to drink the regular whole milk, with a little less flavor, but removing those excess sugars that grow to harm us in the future, than to drink chocolate milk, which has been shown to have those influences on the human body.

Title: Milk is good for your bones Content: Here is why milk is bad for your bones : Point 1 : Milk depletes the calcium from your bones The milk myth has spread around the world based on the flawed belief that this protein and calcium-rich drink is essential to support good overall health and bone health in particular at any age. It is easy to understand that the confusion about milk's imaginary benefits stems from the fact that it contains calcium, around 300 mg per cup. But many scientific studies have shown an assortment of detrimental health effects directly linked to milk consumption. And the most surprising link is that not only do we barely absorb the calcium in cow's milk (especially if pasteurized), but to make matters worse, it actually increases calcium loss from the bones. Here's how it happens. Like all animal protein, milk acidifies the body pH which in turn triggers a biological correction. You see, calcium is an excellent acid neutralizer and the biggest storage of calcium in the body is - you guessed it. .. in the bones. So the very same calcium that our bones need to stay strong is utilized to neutralize the acidifying effect of milk. Once calcium is pulled out of the bones, it leaves the body via the urine, so that the surprising net result after this is an actual calcium deficit. [1] 2 : Milk increases fracture risks Many scientific studies contradict the conventional wisdom that milk and dairy consumption help reduce osteoporotic fractures. Surprisingly, studies demonstrating that milk and dairy products actually fail to protect bones from fractures outnumber studies that prove otherwise. Even drinking milk from a young age does not protect against future fracture risk but actually increases it. And the 12 year long Harvard Nurses' Health Study found that those who consumed the most calcium from dairy foods broke more bones than those who rarely drank milk. This is a broad study based on 77,761 women aged 34 through 59 years of age. [1] Conclusion Milk is bad for your bones because of those reasons. I have more sources that can strengthen my argument. [2][3][4][5] 1. . http://saveourbones.com... 2. . http://www.news-medical.net... 3. . http://www.care2.com... 4. . http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com... 5. . http://www.sott.net...

Title: Dairy is Bad For Your Health Content: I will be arguing that consuming dairy products is bad for your health. Con will be arguing that either dairy is entirely good for your health or that its benefits outweigh its health risk.

Title: Is milk really healthy? Pro-yes, Con-no Content: As con had only argued one point my original arguments still stand. Milk is not really healthy for you.

Title: Vegan can be Christians and any scripture against so is hypocritical Content: Milk is not 100% factually intended for human consumption is it? because milk is intended for feeding calfs to survive in the years before able to create memories or move about. Human do produce enough milk for the same thing. If it was solely intended or human consumption then i would accept the made by God for the us to be the best we can. But it is not. The milk is perfect to keep a mother child into the taste and riches of nutrition but it is of no interest of making human design any better

Title: Is milk really healthy? Pro-yes, Con-no Content: Milk is extremely healthy for people because it contains vitamin D

Title: Milk is good for your bones Content: Definitions : Milk : The milk of cows, goats, or other animals, used as food by humans.[1] Bones : The dense, semirigid, porous, calcified connective tissue forming the major portion of the skeleton of most vertebrates.[2] Rules : 1. No semantics 2. No trolling 3. No spamming 4. No profanities The first round is for acceptance only. The debate will start in the second round. If you think that milk is actually good for your bones, feel free to join. 1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 2. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Title: Is milk really healthy? Pro-yes, Con-no Content: Yes when you are a baby you drink milk all the time, but it is milk that is packed full of other things that are not already in it. They can't just drink straight milk when they are born because it would do more harm than good at that point. Babies need certain things until they get older so they can develop how they should. There is not a lot of evidence to support that vitamin D helps bones because it has not been completely scientifically proven.

Title: Milk is good for your bones Content: That's very kind of you.

Title: Beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk. Content: The resolution for this debate is "Beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk". Thus, my opponent's burden is to prove that Beer, in moderation, is healthier for me than milk is. I personally, am highly allergic to alcohol and cannot break it down. It gives me gastro-intestinal upset and at one point, hideous diarrhea. However, I am perfectly fine with milk, and do not have lactose intolerance. Beer is, by definition, "an alcoholic beverage made by brewing and fermentation from cereals, usually malted barley, and flavored with hops and the like for a slightly bitter taste. " . http://dictionary.reference.com... The presence of alcohol in anything I consume will have great negative impact on my health and thus, I must assert that Beer, in any amount, is less healthy for me than milk. I look forward to my opponent's response. Thank you.

Title: Milk is bad to the bone. Content: Milk is good for you.

Title: Chocolate milk is healthy. Content: Chocolate milk is healthy because it contains the same 9 nutrients as white milk. Chocolate milk drinkers are not heavier than non-milk drinkers. You can find an explanation video to support this at youtube.com and type in Midwest Diary Chocolate Milk nurse. This topic is well known and many people say that yes, chocolate milk is healthy... under 2 conditions. If the chocolate milk is LOW FAT and that you do not drink chocolate milk too much. Thank you and please comment on this topic! If you have any suggestions please reply to this comment. If you may know me, please also reply too.

Title: Beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk. Content: It seems my opponent has not read my arguement. In R1 I clearly laid out my full resolution: "For the average, healthy person, beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk. Of course it there are exceptions. Pregnant women should obviously not drink any alcohol, nor should diabetics or people taking prescription medicine. People also driving or working machinery shouldn't drink as well. " I would have liked to fit this resolution into the field given when starting a debate, but space was limited, so I resorted to fully explaining my resolution in R1. In my resolution I stated that beer was beneficial to an "average, healthy person. " Average is defined as "typical; common; ordinary" (. http://dictionary.reference.com...). Since the ordinary person is not allergic to beer, Kleptin, then you are not the "average person" that I was referring to. Also the word "you" can be defined as "one; anyone; people in general" (. http://dictionary.reference.com...). Earlier I specified "you" to be the average person, the general public, which would exclude my opponent. I assume that my opponent accepts the definition of milk to be: "liquid as secreted by cows, goats, or certain other animals and used by humans for food or as a source of butter, cheeses, yogurt, etc" because in R1 he says "I am perfectly fine with milk, and do not have lactose intolerance. " Cow and goat's milk have lactose in them, which leads me to believe he agrees with this term. Dairy milk also contains casein, which breaks down into beta-Casomorphine-7, an opiate. Other examples of opiates are morphine, codeine and fentanyl. Opioid is defined as a "drug, hormone, or other chemical substance having sedative or narcotic effects similar to those containing opium or its derivatives" (. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...). Some reactions that people have to opiates are: nausea and vomiting, drowsiness, itching, dry mouth, and constipation (Oxford Textbook of Palliative Medicine, 3rd ed. ). There has also been studies showing that casein can aggravate, if not cause autism. It has also been linked to cancer, schizophrenia, heart disease and diabetes. Since casein is a drug, it is addictive (especially cheese, because of the high concentration of it) and can even affect a person's personality, causing depression and overeating (. http://danmahony.com...). Beer however, has a positive effect on blood vessels, decreasing the risk of clotting or rupturing. People who drink beer in moderation also have less of a risk of dementia and can even increase cognitive functions (. http://www.forbes.com...). It can also increase metabolism, lower calories and reduce stress (. http://www.menshealth.com...). Kleptin, sorry to hear about your unfortunate condition, but in my resolution, you are classified as an exception. I said in R1 that, for the average person, beer is healthier than milk and you have yet to prove otherwise.

Title: Beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk. Content: I thank whoever accepts this debate. *Note: I would like to say that I am not encouraging excessive use of alcohol. It is important to recognize that beer can also have a significant impact on your health if abused. I will clarify that "moderation" is one or two drinks a day, and half that for women (because of their ability to break down alcohol), not consumed one directly after the other (. http://www.allaboutbeer.com...). Resolution: For the average, healthy person, beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk. Of course it there are exceptions. Pregnant women should obviously not drink any alcohol, nor should diabetics or people taking prescription medicine. People also driving or working machinery shouldn't drink as well. I will start by attempting to reproduce a nutritional table showing beer and milk: United States Department of Agriculture Nutritional Data for Milk and Beer ------------------------| MILK (I cup, 2% milk)----- | BEER (1 cup) ----------- Fat (g) ----------------|------------ 5---------------- | --------- 0 ---------------- Fiber (g) --------------| ----------- 0 ---------------- | --------- .5 -------------- Sodium (mg) -------- | ---------- 122 -------------- | ---------- 12 ------------ Cholesterol (mg) ---- | ---------- 20 --------------- | ----------- 0 ------------- Calories -------------- | ---------- 122 -------------- | ---------- 97 ------------ Calories from fat (%)-| ---------- 37 --------------- | ----------- 0 ------------- I don't think this posted properly so here's the link as well. (. http://www.milksucks.com...) Beer has no fat or cholesterol but does contain less calories and ten times less sodium than milk. Milk is found to actually cause osteoporosis because dairy products have high levels protein. When protein levels in the body are doubled, but no other nutrient levels are changed, the levels of calcium in the urine increase by about fifty percent (Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 1993). Milk is also loaded with pesticides and antibiotics, because cows are producing ten times the amount of milk they would normally produce, their udders get swollen and drag on the ground. Pus and blood have been foound in milk as a result. Antibiotics are used to treat the inflammation and trace amounts have been found in milk, pesticides are also found in the dairy product. These chemicals can build up and negatively effect the immune system, reproductive system and central nervous system. These pesticides have been linked to cancer as well (. http://www.pcrm.org...). In the book Eat, Drink, and Be Healthy: The Harvard Medical School's Guide to Healthy Eating, consuming alcohol in moderate levels "protects against heart disease and ischemic strokes, and mounting evidence [shows] that it protects against diabetes and gallstones" (Eat, Drink, and Be Healthy: The Harvard Medical School's Guide to Healthy Eating, 2001). Alcohol reduces the risk of strokes and heart attacks and increases brain function as well. (. http://www.allaboutbeer.com...) Also, if you have time, read this : . http://www.guardian.co.uk... OK, that's all for now.

Title: Milk is good for your bones Content: Well that's that... Thanks for the 'debate'.

Title: Beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk. Content: A very good round by my opponent. I will begin by addressing some issues I left unresolved since I wanted to do more research. So first, a few counterarguments for my opponent's points so far: A. Milk does not cause Osteoporosis. My opponent's source is an article talking about the safety and benefits of animal hormones. It says absolutely nothing about high protein levels. Even if so, my opponent is severely misinformed and drawing the wrong conclusions. What my opponent is confusing himself about is that during kidney failure, high protein levels in the blood change the charge of the ion flow in the nephrons of the kidney and calcium is excreted into water that leaves as urine. the body contains a massive number of proteins in the blood in the form of albumin and red blood cells. The protein in milk is digested and broken down into amino acids and never gets into the blood in the first place. B. Milk is not "loaded" with pesticides or antibiotics. According to the following links, The FDA has done numerous studies, all of which show that the trace amounts (if any) of hormones, pesticides, or possible antibiotics in milk are safe for human consumption even taking into account the fact that people drink it daily. There are also many regulatory procedures that ensure the safety of milk. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.ces.ncsu.edu... http://www.organic-center.org... http://www.nationaldairycouncil.org... C. I also find my opponent's assumption of dragging udders to be a stretch (no pun intended) as most cows are milked on a frequent basis by machine and thus, would not get a chance to have swollen udders. D. Antibiotics are not used to treat inflammation, but are used to treat infection (which is never prophylatic in cows so my opponent is probably wrong in assuming that they are injected with it constantly). E. My opponent is also wrong in citing his own source. There is no mention about pesticides causing cancer, rather, the insulin-like growth factor present in cow milk. However, in the links above, it is shown that pasteurization destroys the already minuscule amount present and the rest is destroyed in the stomach as IGF-1 is a protein. Furthermore, the citations that my opponent cites are heavily biased. The original journal articles involved experiments with existing IGF levels in humans, where the word "milk" appears a total of 0 times. F. My opponent connects many dots using bad logic. While it is true that Casein breaks down into casomorphines, that is just an intermediate step in the stomach. Casein forms a micelle in the stomach that clots and gets slowly dissolved. The casomorphines are just potential chains that Casein might get broken down into, and even then, the stomach eventually reduces that protein down to base amino acids where it has no effect in the bloodstream. Proteins get broken down in the stomach but the majority of protein digestion takes place in the intestine after the pancreas releases the proteases that ensure complete reduction to amino acids. http://www.wisegeek.com... Furthermore, this link above states that the presence of casomorphines and their action as opiate-like molecules only takes place in autistics, who may have an inability to break down the casomorphines. http://en.wikipedia.org... This article states that outstanding experiments and trials with positive results are biased and unreliable. G. Cutting milk can reduce obesity, but my opponent is comparing 1 glass of beer to 1 glass of milk. You can fix obesity, but you can't fix progressive liver damage. In addition, there are plenty of non-fat varieties of milk but nonalcoholic beers may be a little harder to knock back. Acne is more likely due to excess oil and fat. Non fat milk is a viable option for those who are focused on cosmetics. However, the experiment that I found, the one that allegedly "sparked" the controversy, only showed results in polling people who consumed 3 or more servings a day, and we are arguing a 1:1 comparison, making this point moot. http://www.healthcastle.com... H. As for arthritis, my opponent's claim is due to reading too quickly. The source he provided claimed that most arthritis is due to allergen response and most food allergies are caused by milk. THis is misleading as most arthritis is caused by an allergic response to self, when the body's own white blood cells attack joints, causing joint pain. This is why Glucosamine and Chondroitin help with arthritis: they contain the same material in the joints that the white blood cells attack, leaving the actual body parts unharmed. I. My opponent's source regarding mucus is also biased and premature, connecting the wrong dots. Fact, milk is the most common food allergen. Fact, allergies can manifest into mucus production and cough. Lactose intolerance is categorized as a milk allergy and accounts for it being the most common food allergen. However, we know that the symptoms for lactose intolerance are not related to these, so by elimination, we can estimate that a far lower percentage of milk allergies is due to things other than lactose intolerance. J. In discussing prescription drugs, the number of drug abusers worldwide is irrelevant to this debate. Also, as a Pharmacy student, I can say that my opponent's assertion ("Taking three prescription medication at once is abuse") is also misleading and faulty. My opponent's sources lead to a term specifically for excessive medication use. However, we are speaking about legitimate prescriptions that are required for maintaining health. It is not uncommon for a person to be on a cholesterol medication, a blood pressure medication, and another medication (such as an asthma medication, an antihistamine, a sleeping aid, pain medication, antibiotic) at the same time. To simply categorize it as abuse and unhealthy is simply manipulation of data and language. Regardless, it it is a fact that prescription medication use is as high as it is. Whether or not it is healthy is outside the scope of the debate. What is important is the fact that my opponent's description of an "average" person is either unrealistic or harmful to his case, as moderate drinking of alcoholic beverages would interfere with drug metabolism and the imaginary health detriments that my opponent is conjuring can and will become a reality. K. Ranitidine actually raises blood alcohol levels because it inhibits the enzyme responsible for the 3 step metabolism of alcohol. The "asian flush" does disappear, but only because the alcohol isn't being digested at all in the beginning and because the antihistamine effects of the two drugs decrease the flushing. However, when the drug effects wear off, alcohol is metabolized at the same mid-way speed, allowing for an increase in the toxic acetaldehyde intermediate. This puts excessive strain on the liver because not only is the liver busy metabolizing the drugs, but it gets the added load of the unmetabolized alcohol to follow suit. Famotidine, though slightly safer, also harms the liver over long periods of use. L. My opponent brings up the topic of lactose intolerance. Just as there are many, many different kinds of beer, there are also many varieties of milk, and a good number of them are lactose-free. I don't see how lactose intolerance is an issue in this debate because although non-alcoholic beer is hard to find and probably not healthy, fat-free or lactose-free milk is readily available and usually fortified with vitamins. Soy milk is also very healthy. There are many varieties of milk free of the chemicals my opponent mentioned. I will allow my opponent to address these first and conclude at the end.

Title: Should we drink milk Content: Maybe they help digest stuff so they can make milk

Title: Chocolate milk should be served in school!!! Content: When you think of chocolate milk, what is the first thing that comes to your mind? The soft, creamy taste? The happy kids having fun while drinking it? Well, you would be suprised to know that, chocolate milk is in fact, healthy for kids too. First of all, chocolate milk has all 9 essential ingriedients. It has calcium, which makes the kids grow taller, and also the sweet taste, unlike white milk which some kids can call "yucky" or "too plain". I know what you are thinking, that it causes obesity and stuff, but then, kids are kids. They run around the playground at lunchtime, so there is not a big chance that they will turn suddenly obtuse just because they drink chocolate milk. Now, you night think that there are too much sugar, but the truth is, The little bit of sugar is what keeps them going during the day and keeps them energetic and healthy. There are more reasons, but for now, this is it. I hope you vote for me!

Title: Chocolate milk is bad for your health Content: This chocolate milk has a lot of bad things for health. This is a very big problem to occur in your life, of you going to be not healty. Well drink Chocolate milk please.www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQ4wGDl56Zg

Title: Should you be consuming caffeine Content: I would argue that it is not best for humans to be consuming anything that is not naturally occurring in nature. To be more specific, I believe in the Paleo ideaology which believes that if humans weren't consuming certain things 15 thousand years ago, They shouldn't be consuming it today as our bodies have not yet effectively addapted to using these foods, Drugs, Or chemicals for energy. Just think of all of those people who can't consume milk because there bodies reject or cannot tolerate it. Humans should not be consuming painkillers as painkillers are very hard on our bodies and inhibit our bodies natural ability to sense pain in response to an outside stimuli. Any drug that affects your brain chemicals should not be taken unless absolutely necessary. Thousands of people die every year as a result of accidents with prescription pain killers and prescribed medication. Bringing attention back to caffeine, Caffeine I'll admit for most people is ok as in they will not be debilitated by it at least in the present. But that does not mean that caffeine is safe on our bodies long term health. The effects of caffeine on our bodies in the long term is unknown and therefore should be avoided.

Title: Chocolate Milk: The Harmful Stuff Content: I couldn't really be bothered reading that, so all I'm going to say is this: I firmly believe in the right to drink chocolate milk. It is delicious, and I am shocked that anyone would want to rid us of one of God's greatest inventions. Thank you, and good night.

Title: Chocolate milk is healthy. Content: Instigator has yet again forfeited. I will conclude that he could not think of a valid argument.

Title: Chocolate milk is healthy. Content: Instigator has forfeited this round. I will hold my argument in case he wishes to continue.

Title: Plant-Based Diets are just as good if not better than Animal-Based Diets/diets with animal products Content: Why? After much research, it becomes surprisingly simple (however, there is always so much to learn). I'm not citing sources because I don't feel like looking all of them up -- however, I do feel confident that my opinions have been fairly well-researched. I'd be happy to look up anything and find the source that someone else can't find when they look it up, though. 1) Dairy is completely unnecessary for anyone living in a developed country. Cow's milk, which is made for baby calves much the same way human women produce breast milk ONLY for their own species, is known as a healthy drink. But is this really necessary for a country (I'm from the USA) that has access to virtually unlimited sources of protein and calcium? Milk is the food that is raved about for its protein and calcium -- I'm not impressed. I have concluded that the only humans truly in need of this source of protein & calcium are those poor third-world countries that have very little hope of meeting their daily needs in these categories. Everyone else who has easy access to markets and grocery stores and doesn't realize there are so many other sources of protein and calcium is simply making an uninformed statement. 2) Although meat is the only food source of Vitamin B12 that we know of, B12 is added to many foods that don't include animal products, and from the research I've read, there appears to be no huge difference between how the body absorbs this added B12 (if anyone has research to the contrary, please inform me). So far as I can tell, B12 is THE ONLY nutrient in meat that can't easily be found naturally in other foods. 3) Factory farms help produce and kill 56 billion animals per year for human consumption. Factory farms are very often places operating with highly unethical practices. From gestation crates (pigs that can't turn around in their crates for their 2.5 years of existence), to artificially inseminated cows (they're repeatedly impregnated unnaturally so they will lactate and we can thus take their milk), to bigger animals via hormones and antibiotics (all of which are likely in the meat/dairy when you eat them) who produce far more meat and milk than they're naturally supposed to and live far less as long as they naturally would because we abuse and then kill them for our consumption, to chickens who get a max of 5 minutes of fresh air, to baby calves being taken away from their milk-producing mothers at birth and then killed for veal, to...you know what, there's a lot more. Go find out. 4) Western society eats too much meat. Straight-up. It's very obvious when you begin to look at chronic disease charts and when you look at the correlation between meat/dairy and disease. It's clear that small amounts of lean meat and dairy CAN be very healthful...but the reality is, most people with modern diets eat too much of these products to the point that it is unhealthy. If, for the most part, meat and dairy are unnecessary, then it just doesn't make sense why we eat so much of it. 5) Excess animal protein actually INCREASES risk of osteoporosis. Definitely not what they taught me in school or in that stupid food pyramid thing. But yes, this is true. It's likely that even the recommended levels of protein (around 70 grams, I believe) are too high, and the number I've seen for typical dairy American consumption is an average of over 100 grams of protein per day. Most of it is animal protein. That is INSANE. So, complete plant proteins and other incomplete plant proteins which can be combined, are actually healthier than animal proteins in the long-term when considering this fact. 6) Plant-based diets are more likely to be healthier overall. This is a statement made with a bit of speculation, but I want to point out that vegetarians/vegans aren't estimated to live a few years longer than omnivores because they don't eat meat, but more likely because they're overall more aware of what they're eating. Trust me, that is really the main goal for overall nutrition and health. Awareness! Where is your meat/dairy coming from and how was it produced? Do you know? That is my problem with an animal-based diet, in addition to it not really being even necessary to consume animal products. 7) Plants, in general, have fewer calories and 400X the micro-nutrients than meat/dairy do. Micronutrients are far more helpful to the body than excess/unnecessary/small amounts of vitamins, protein, and calcium. Many vegetables, fruits, grains, and pseudograins are very high in not only protein and calcium, but also Vitamins A, B, C, D, K, and also iron, magnesium, and much more. Going back to the first statement of this point, the reason why this matters is...well, look around. Obesity is now a disease in the US. Weight, diabetes, heart disease, and other chronic problems related to lifestyle choices can be relieved by taking a look at our diets. If plants have fewer calories and WAY more nutrients than meat and dairy, it will DEFINITELY benefit overweight and unhealthy people to cut it out! Literally! 8) Nutrient deficiencies are just as likely to happen in omnivores as vegetarians/vegans, except for B12. Iron is more likely to be a problem based on your sex instead of whether or not you eat animals. Females have much more trouble maintaining iron levels than males. Vitamin D deficiency is commonly found in omnivores and vegetarians alike. We are all supposed to be eating "well-planned diets," not just vegans. Silly. 9) Most people who switch out vegetables/other plants for meat, even if they don't completely cut it all out of their diet, eventually report feeling much better. It's like a load lifted off the body. For some popular/pretty credible examples, check out Mike Tyson, Bill Clinton, Ellen DeGeneres (ok, she's just a talk-show host, not a high-performance athlete or politician, but she had some great things to say about changes in her diet), Brendan Brazier (former Ironman triathlete), Tony Gonzalez (NFL), and oh so many more. 10) Eating meat/dairy contributes to world hunger. About 1/3 of the world's grains and crops produced are fed to livestock bred solely for human consumption -- this food could and should actually be going to HUMANS. It is well known that 1 pound of beef costs an ungodly amount of resources to produce compared to 1 pound of grain (the grain would go straight to humans instead of the animals, which are then fed to humans). It is well known by informed people that we have all the food and resources to feed all the hungry and starving people in the world. But we're not, and simply, we could if first-world citizens would just cut back on their meat/dairy intake. It's that simple, guys. If we would be less selfish and gluttonous, we could feed every single hungry person on this earth. It is pretty mind-blowing. Then everyone else would have a shot at getting the bare minimum of their protein and calcium needs, too.

Title: Should we drink milk Content: It depletes the calcium from your bones to digest it.

Title: Beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk. Content: Thanks Kleptin, good luck in the final round. "My opponent's source is an article talking about the safety and benefits of animal hormones" My source was the Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 1993. It does not have a link because it's not on the Internet. The research was done by Dr. Robert P. Heaney. I did find the excerpt that I was referring to on the Internet however: (http://www.ecopolitan.com...) (scroll about halfway down). In the text he says: "The net effect is such that, if protein intake is doubled without changing intake of other nutrients, urinary calcium content increases by about 50 percent." The other article that I cited was referring to my claim there was pesticides and and antibiotics in milk. I will take a paragraph directly out of the source that I used in round one: "Milk contains contaminants that range from pesticides to drugs. Milk naturally contains hormones and growth factors produced within a cow's body. In addition, synthetic hormones such as recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) are commonly used in dairy cows to increase the production of milk.27 Because treated cows are producing quantities of milk nature never intended, the end result can be mastitis, or inflammation of the mammary glands. Treatment of this condition requires the use of antibiotics, and antibiotic traces have occasionally been found in samples of milk and other dairy products. Pesticides, poly chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and dioxins are other examples of contaminants found in milk. These toxins do not readily leave the body and can eventually build to harmful levels that may affect the immune and reproductive systems. The central nervous system can also be affected. Moreover, PCBs and dioxins have also been linked to cancer." (http://www.pcrm.org...) In regards to my opponent's sources, one source says: "The newly approved tests detect only four, or at most, five beta lactams. What about the several other families of antibiotics currently available for use?" (http://www.ces.ncsu.edu...). Another source, when looking at the "Human Health" section, is one big "citation needed" after another(http://en.wikipedia.org...). His third source says: All 739 milk samples tested contained residues, and in fact the average sample had 2.88 residues – a HUGE jump from the testing just eight years earlier." and it also says "The good news is that the levels of DDE, DPA, and other pesticides found in milk in 2004 were very low. Most fell below one part per billion (ppb). The highest residue levels found were, at most, one-quarter of the applicable EPA tolerance (the maximum allowable limit of a pesticide in a given food)." (http://www.organic-center.org...). These pesticides build up in the body. The samples that contained high amounts of pesticides could easily build up to harmful levels. "I also find my opponent's assumption of dragging udders to be a stretch (no pun intended) as most cows are milked on a frequent basis by machine and thus, would not get a chance to have swollen udders." Not EVERY cow has swollen udders, but there are cows that do, here's a picture. (http://www.milksucks.co.uk...) "Antibiotics are not used to treat inflammation, but are used to treat infection (which is never prophylactic in cows so my opponent is probably wrong in assuming that they are injected with it constantly." I probably did mix up the words antibiotics and anti-inflammatory, but when cow's udders drag on the ground (see above picture), they are sure to be cut. Those cuts may also come into contact with the manure left on the ground in the cow's living space, and can infect the udders. "The original journal articles involved experiments with existing IGF levels in humans, where the word "milk" appears a total of 0 times." Again, you must have missed a part in my article. In my source (http://www.pcrm.org...), it says: "Prostate and breast cancers have been linked to consumption of dairy products, presumably related to increases in a compound called insulin-like growth factor (IGF-I). IGF-I is found in cow's milk and has been shown to occur in increased levels in the blood of individuals consuming dairy products on a regular basis. Other nutrients that increase IGF-I are also found in cow's milk." In the section labeled "Cancer," the word "milk" shows up five times. "This article states that outstanding experiments and trials with positive results are biased and unreliable" The Wikipedia article? I didn't see that in the article anywhere. "You can fix obesity, but you can't fix progressive liver damage." Moderate Drinking does not cause liver damage. (http://www.liverfoundation.org...) "In discussing prescription drugs, the number of drug abusers worldwide is irrelevant to this debate." It is relevant, because although those numbers are high in the US, other countries may not take nearly as many drugs. Since we are dealing with a worldwide scale here, those figures may not be nearly as high. Ranitidine is also known as Zantac, and famotidine is know as Pepcid, both are over the counter prescriptions. These can be taken with alcohol, how many other prescriptions can be taken with alcohol as well? "Just as there are many, many different kinds of beer, there are also many varieties of milk, and a good number of them are lactose-free." That is true, but in R1 you defined beer to be "an alcoholic beverage made by brewing and fermentation from cereals, usually malted barley, and flavored with hops and the like for a slightly bitter taste." and in R2 I defined milk as "liquid as secreted by cows, goats, or certain other animals and used by humans for food or as a source of butter, cheeses, yogurt, etc." You did not alter my definition of milk and I accepted your definition of beer. Your definition of beer says it is an alcoholic beverage and my definition of milk says it is a liquid secreted by animals like cows and goats. Cow's and goat's milk has lactose in it. So to bring up non-alcoholic beers and lactose-free milks is irrelevant. Even if we were to argue non-alcoholic beers and lactose-free milks, who says non-alcoholic beers aren't healthy? And they are not hard to find, I can walk down to my local grocery store and a buy a 24-pack if I wanted to. Granted, lactose-free and fat-free milks probably remove some of the health problems that arise from milk, it isn't just the fat or lactose in the milk that is the problem. It is the casein and the chemicals too. Also, my sources are not biased, they are merely compilations of evidence that have found milk to be detrimental to one's health. If I wanted to read a book on communism, it isn't biased because it doesn't mention fascist ideas as well. I was researching how milk is unhealthy for a person, and that is what I found. So, in conclusion: Beer has no fat, ten times less sodium, no cholesterol and less calories then milk. Beer can protect against diabetes, strokes, heart disease, dementia and lower stress. Milk has small amounts pesticides and antibiotics that can build up in the body that can effect the immune system, central nervous system and reproductive system. These pesticides have been linked to cancer too. Milk has casein, which breaks down into casomorphine, which can aggravate autism. My opponent has misread my sources, claiming they are saying something completely different that what they are actually saying. He has gone so far as to twist my resolution and say my restriction was on people who drive, which is not what I said. Cow's milk is made for baby cows, not humans of all ages. We do not need milk to maintain a healthy diet beyond the age of 12 months old. Thanks to Kleptin for the great debate.

Title: Milk is good for your bones Content: Yeah, I'll just post these so that you don't need to wait for me to 'time out'. Thanks again. Not exactly positive first experience but all experiences just benefit me in the long run.

Title: Chocolate milk is bad for your health Content: Well chocolate milk has more sugars than cola, which is very surprising for, me. It says that this much sugar can be very bad for your health and could cause very bad health problems, inside your body. So I am guessing that this chocolate milk should be banned in school and also this chocolate milk has a very bad thing that it also makes you go fat and does not have that much nutrition such as vitamin C has only 4%. Does this tell you that chocolate milk is bad for your body? This milk also does say that it would be better to be buying or drinking this good old normal milk. They say that milk that is normal has a vitamin D and other good things for your body, which is I am thinking that this drink of the chocolate milk is just bad. I am also thinking that this choco milk also you will think, what this does not make sense. But I have a good backup for that. you can read that this chocolate milk can be a unhealthy drink that will only cover your body up with sugar. It can also be covering your body up with many calories. So please be kind and say yes and vote for me.

Title: Milk is bad to the bone. Content: R2 Rebuttals"Milk is good for you." nathanw2002I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I think I've adequately defeated this bare assertion made by my opponent already in round one. This is a bare assertion by nathanw2002 because the statement "milk is good for you" is true only because my opponent says so.12. http://fallacies.findthedata.com...

Title: Milk is good for your bones Content: Okay, well this shall be my first debate on this site, so I hope that I do halfway decent considering. I suppose that I'm not supposed to state much on the topic and my position yet since you said we'll start in round two... So I suppose I'll just say good luck, or something of the sort...

Title: Should we drink milk Content: yes it might but it replenishes the depleted calcium when it gets digested

Title: Milk is good for your bones Content: You shouldn't be sorry, I'm thankful that you can take part in this debate. Since this means Pro FF this debate, I think the winner is clear.

Title: Milk is bad to the bone. Content: StructureR1 ArgumentsR2 RebuttalsR3 Defend your R1 argument against opponent's R2 rebuttal Bad to the bone = immoral. Full resolution: Drinking cow's milk is usually immoral. Exceptions, people with rare medical conditions, and extraordinary circumstances. For example, stranded on a desert island and/or about to go into a diabetic coma. Burden of proof will be on me to prove that drinking cow's milk is usually immoral. OutlineI. IntroII. Animal ethicsIII. HealthIV. EnvironmentV. ConclusionVI. SourcesI. IntroWe shouldn't drink bovine milk because it encourages the slavery, exploitation, and mistreatment of cows. Not only that, but slavery, exploitation, and mistreatment of one animal paves the way for this same treatment towards other animals. Cows milk is unhealthy nor environmentally sustainable. II. Animal ethics"A factory farm is a large, industrial operation that raises large numbers of animals for food. Over 99% of farm animals in the U.S. are raised in factory farms, which focus on profit and efficiency at the expense of animal welfare." [0]Animals on so called "humane" farms don't fare much better. [1][2] "Even under the best circumstances, the incentive to treat animals “humanely” is limited to the extent to which it is necessary to raise them to market weight (which is just a fraction of their natural lifespan). Any humane practice beyond this would be seen as inefficient and unsustainable by today’s business standards." [3]Between the inherit conflict of interest between animal welfare and profit. and the brutal realities there is no moral justification for humans drinking bovine milk.III. HealthMilk causes osteoporosis and increases chances of hip fractures. Contains, IGF-1, cholesterol, casein, lactose, high in fat, high in saturated fat, and high in dead bacteria endotoxins. "These results support the hypothesis that dairy products and calcium are associated with a greater risk of prostate cancer. " [4]" Studies have shown that IGFs are potent mitogens for a variety of cancer cells including prostate cancer since they stimulate cancer cell growth and suppress programmed cell death. " [5]"Naturally occurring milk IGF-1 levels were recorded in 5777 random milk samples from the Bavarian dairy cow population." [6]As you can see from above, milk increases cancer risk. IGF-1 is found in cow's milk and is associated with increased cancer risk. "These findings suggest that even small intakes of foods of animal origin are associated with significant increases in plasma cholesterol concentrations, which are associated, in turn, with significant increases in chronic degenerative disease mortality rates." [7]Casein is a protein that can cause an immune system response which can lead to type I diabetes. “Total protein consumption did not correlate with diabetes incidence (r = +0.402), but consumption of the beta-casein A1 variant did (r = +0.726). Even more pronounced was the relation between beta-casein (A1+B) consumption and diabetes (r = +0.982). These latter two cow caseins yield a bioactive peptide beta-casomorphin-7 after in vitro digestion with intestinal enzymes whereas the common A2 variant or the corresponding human or goat caseins do not. beta-casomorphin-7 has opioid properties including immunosuppression, which could account for the specificity of the relation between the consumption of some but not all beta-casein variants and diabetes incidence. “ [8] “" Women who drank three glasses of milk or more every day had a nearly doubled risk of death and cardiovascular disease, and a 44 percent increased risk of cancer compared to women who drank less than one glass per day, the researchers found. Men's overall risk of death increased about 10 percent when they drank three or more glasses of milk daily, said the study, published online Oct. 28 in BMJ."” [9] “The risk of any bone fracture increased 16 percent in women who drank three or more glasses daily, and the risk of a broken hip increased 60 percent, the findings indicated. “ [10] Fat is not only the densest of the three macro nutrients at 9 calories per gram as opposed to 4 for carbohydrates and proteins. This can lead to obesity and intramyocellular lipid build up.Saturated fat increases blood viscosity which makes the heart work harder. Lactose is a sugar that many people are intolerant towards. IV. EnvironmentInherently due to trophic levels milk must be worse for the environment. From the American Journal of Clinical nutrition we can see that lupine, a vegan alternative, is better for the environment than cow's milk. [11]V. ConclusionIn conclusion, there is only one ethical choice, and that is to stop drinking bovine milk. Thanks for the debate.VI. Sources0. http://www.aspca.org... 1. http://humanefacts.org... 2. http://humanemyth.org... 3. http://freefromharm.org... 4. http://ajcn.nutrition.org... 5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 7. http://ajcn.nutrition.org... 8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.... 9. http://www.webmd.com... 10. http://www.webmd.com...11. http://ajcn.nutrition.org...

Title: Chocolate be banned in elementary and middle schools Content: Many children refuse to eat or drink healthy things because of the way they taste, adding sugar is just fine with me if it gets kids to drink milk. I believe that chocolate milk is not as unhealthy as my opponent makes it sound. If anyone has too much of it, it may become unhealthy, but that's with anything. If all they have is the little 1 cup then it will be perfectly fine for their health. In conclusion, schools should not remove chocolate milk. Thank you for debating with me.

Title: Dairy Farming is Inconsistent with Modern Western Ethical Norms Content: The claim that it causes harm is correct, when we give these specific scenarios (which is misleadingly vivid), however, the fact of the matter is, in modern western ethics, the wants of many outweigh the needs of the few, or the strong's ethics takes precedence. My argument is as follows: The strong have dominion over the weak. Humans are stronger than animals. Therefore, humans have dominion over animals. Second frame -- Humans have dominion over animals. Stewardship(a) is optional. Therefore, humans do not require to be stewards of animals OR Some humans believe they have stewardship rather than dominion over animals. Therefore, the reverse is also true. Third frame -- Humans have dominion over animals. Some Humans do not require to be stewards over animals. Western culture is capitalistic. Therefore, the need for cheap foodstuffs take precedence over the ethical desire for animal safety. Fourth Frame -- Some humans believe they have stewardship over animals. These humans will prefer to eat ethically acceptable foodstuffs. We live in a Capitalistic environment. Therefore, there will be a market for ethically acceptable foodstuffs. Fifth and Penultimate Frame -- We live in a Capitalistic moral structure. We live (loosely) to Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs. Therefore, there will be some who cannot fulfil the physiological need of food. Sixth and Final Frame -- Some western people cannot fulfil the physiological need for food. The "some" is a large minority (e. g. more than a thousand). They believe that acceptable morals do not take precedence over survival. Therefore, people eat cheap, if inethical, food. Therefore, there is a market for inethical food. Therefore, inethical food is constistent with Western morals. So, my argument simplified is as follows:Westerners live in a capitalist society (P1) Westerners live in either North American or Western European culture (just to make sure we have a geographic location down, so we're not bringing up, say, North Korea). (P2)Westerners live (loosely) to Maslow's Heirarchy of needs (P3)Some westerners believe we do not believe we have a stewardship of animals (P4)It is cheaper to not have stewardship over animals (P4.1)Those who do not believe in stewardship where they are neutral will decide on issues other than ethical acceptability of the animal treatment (P4.2)When we live in a Capitalist society, and some people do not believe we have stewardship over animals, there is a market for those who do not believe we have a stewardship of animals (L1)It is cheaper to be inethical, as there are less costs (L2). Therefore, some Westerners will choose inethical behaviour in favour of cheaper product (C). Therefore, the ethics of westerners are poor or non-existent(C2)Therefore, the consistency of inethical behaviour means it is consistent with Western Norms. We live in either a capitalist society, or a progressive society, where private businesses or corporations have control over their own prices to some extent, and contrast to state owned businesses. [1]. This is inarguably true. The second premise is for clarification only. Give an alternative if you so wish. We live, at least loosely, to Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs[2]. This means that there is a loose structure to how our motivation or choice is made. It is not strict, but loosely true. It means that in a choice between starving to death and commiting adultery, the majority of people will commit adultery. In this scenario, it means that people will choose inethical food over indomitable cost, being pushed into poverty, or just preferring the taste. The statement that some westerners do not believe they have stewardship is self-proving. If I do not believe I have to look after animals, then I do not believe in stewardship. The statement that it is cheaper(b) is also true in the following citations giving proof of:. http://groceries.asda.com...http://www.mysupermarket.co.uk...http://www.mysupermarket.co.uk...The sources show it is cheaper to get inorganic milk. People will choose the lower cost over the more expensive milk. Inorganic milk will always also be more expensive; if you want why, petition the information, and I will explain when I have more words. The logic in this argument is solid, from my perspective. The argument that it is inconsistent with already existing ethics implies there is a contradiction. We draw our Western ethics from Law and government on the whole. Most people act within the Law because it is the Law, not for other issues. The fact that the laws are inethical means that "The ethics of dairy farming is consistently poor". This means that modern western ethical norms are disagreeing with your opinion. You must justify how you know perfectly what the modern western ethical norms are before saying they disagree with them. Your claim shows that it is inethical by your standard. I'm sure a starving man would disagree. I hope to go into more depth of the psychology of the Law, and threaten the position of what moral standards are, in regards to whether they are consistent with the poor behaviour will justify my position. Thank you. a. Stewardship, meaning we have an active moral duty to look after animals. I am not fulfilling the requirements of stewardship when I don't beat up animals whenever I see them (although I kill flies in my room for just being there. .. :P). Stewardship is active, and passive actions are not fulfilling stewardship. This is a shorthand, and may not be the exact definition, but it is a quick way of saying what i want to say, and I have explained the meaning employed. b. economically cheaper. Saves money. Saves opportunity costs. etc.1. . http://dictionary.reference.com...;2. . http://tabacco.blog-city.com...;

Title: Chocolate milk is bad for your health Content: The instigator was unable to contradict my rebuttals.

Title: Chocolate Milk: The Harmful Stuff Content: Is chocolate milk okay to drink? I strongly believe that schools should not allow chocolate milk because a 7.5 ounce can of Coke has 25 grams of sugar while chocolate milk can have up to 20% more, a 8 ounce glass of chocolate milk can have from 15-31 grams of sugar, and yes, chocolate milk may have calcium but all the added sugar doesn"t let your body absorb it. One reason that chocolate milk should not be allowed in schools is because a 7.5 ounce can of Coke has 25 grams of sugar while chocolate milk has 20% more. For example if you take 25 and add 20%. You would have about 30 grams of sugar in one 7.5 ounce glass of chocolate milk. Also, when you drink chocolate milk all of the sugar that you get from it is really bad for your body. In addition, chocolate milk is drank a lot. So, if you drink a lot of chocolate milk then you are getting a lot of sugars, therefore wrecking your health. Another reason that chocolate milk should not be allowed at school is because most children don"t get chocolate milk except in school. "Many children only get to have chocolate milk at school"but they get to drink a lot of it there. Some children consume as many as 10 or even 15 cartons of chocolate milk in a week at school." Says Jonathan Smith, writer of Chocolate Milk: More Harmful Than Healthful. This is not a good thing! Because of this, kids might get... FAT! The final reason that schools should not allow chocolate milk is because yes, chocolate milk has calcium and other nutrients but all of the added sugar doesn"t let your organs absorb it. There is just so much sugar that all the good things in it will not be absorbed because of the sugar. Even if you drink fat free, you still get all the sugar and not enough nutrients. I strongly believe that schools should not allow chocolate milk because a 7.5 ounce can of Coke has 25 grams of sugar while chocolate milk can have up to 20% more, a 8 ounce glass of chocolate milk can have from 15-31 grams of sugar, and yes, chocolate milk may have calcium but all the added sugar doesn"t let your body absorb it. So please don"t let kids have chocolate milk at Mapleview.

Title: Should we drink milk Content: off the subject of not helping you bones it has lots of vitamins and minerals that help you start a great day

Title: Chocolate Milk: The Harmful Stuff Content: mmmmmm chocolate..... I don't drink CHOCOLATE milk for the calcium, I drink it for the CHOCOLATE and as you know, CHOCOLATE tastes good..................................

Title: Dairy is Bad For Your Health Content: Since my opponent forfeited, I'll try to give two possible arguments for the health benefits of dairy and rebut them. Dairy is High in Calcium ". . .animal protein, including that from dairy products, may leach more calcium from the bones than is ingested, said Campbell, professor of nutritional biochemistry at Cornell and director of the Cornell-China-Oxford Project, the most comprehensive project on diet and disease ever conducted. 'This phenomenon could explain why Americans, who ingest much higher levels of calcium, have much higher rates of osteoporosis and hip fractures compared with many Chinese and other Asians who consume few dairy products and ingest low amounts of calcium,' Campbell said. Hip fractures in the United States, for example, are approximately five times more frequent than in China. . .increased levels of animal-based proteins, including protein from dairy products, 'almost certainly contribute to a significant loss of bone calcium while vegetable-based diets clearly protect against bone loss,' Campbell reported. This view is consistent with evidence comparing bone fracture rates among different countries, which shows that countries having the highest calcium intakes also have the highest fracture rates. It is also consistent with other studies on nutritionally rich 'Western' diets and 'Western' diseases showing that low-calcium, vegetarian diets are associated with increased bone density; that casein, milk's principal protein, is a well-established contributor to high blood cholesterol in the Western world; and that casein significantly enhances the development of tumor growth in experimental animals" (http://www.news.cornell.edu...). Not only is the calcium component of dairy undermined by its casein component, which causes a loss of calcium from the bones, especially over long term consumption, but the risk factors associated with dairy, such as high blood cholesterol, far outweigh the benefits (https://www.drmcdougall.com...). There are plenty of safe, healthy sources of calcium in the plant kingdom: broccoli, kale, spinach, bok choy, soybeans, okra, watercress, and the list goes on. Dairy is High in Vitamin D Since I have already pointed out a few risk factors with dairy consumption, it should be obvious that one vitamin component does not outweigh the health risks associated with dairy. Almond and soy milk tend to be fortified with both calcium and vitamin D; they're a great alternative to dairy. Certain mushrooms such as portabella and maitake have more than five times as much vitamin D than a cup of cow's milk. Juices and cereals also tend to be fortified with vitamin D. It should be pointed out that vitamin D is produced naturally in the skin when exposed to sunlight and is a much more efficient source as 15-30 minutes of exposure to the arms and legs can give you more than six times as much vitamin D than an 8oz glass of milk (http://www.sunshinevitamin.org...). You would have to drink six glasses of milk, or 48 ounces, to get the daily recommended amount of vitamin D as proper sun exposure would give you (approx. 600IU)! And consider that 4,000IU is considered a safe upper-limit for adults (http://ods.od.nih.gov...). Milk is definitely not a healthy source of calcium and vitamin D. Here is a letter by Dr. Robert M. Kradjian warning people about the health risks associated with dairy that the prospective reader may be interested in (http://www.notmilk.com...).

Title: humans should endeavour to become a vegan species Content: thank you for embarking on this discussion with me. human beings have flourished on earth in vast terrains and we still do with differing food type availability. the amazon diet is very different to the eskimo diet and yet all the varying human communities omni/carnivores and herbivores have all flourished healthily whilst maintaining fundamentally differnt diets. the sophisticated library of terms that modern science uses to explain our nutritional needs are just elements of raw data that is only relevant to the persons in which the effects were observed. nutrition as a system is totally interwoven into our other bodily systems and so it is actually very incomplete to deduce that children who dont drink milk will have weaker bones or a calcium shortage. the reality of the situation as is the case with most matters is the influence of financial profit. scientists ultimately only manipulate data to make it appear favourable to the goals of the organisations that fund their 'science' if a scientist was to point out that cows milk has been shown to be incompatible with the human stomache, the dairy industry would ensure that 100 other scientists rebutt or 'reinterpret' the undesirable science. large parts of indian civilisations up until the present have remained vegan for 1000s of years without any scientifically noticeable calcium deficient conditions incidentally these same people have also been reported to not spending their whole lives grazing on their vegetable curries to keep their nutritional standards in line with their omnivore brethren indeed plant life is also living. and its possible that plants feel just as much pain by our disturbing their natural life cycle. however, realistically lets start by protecting the cows and hens whose pain we can clearly perceive......then we can go searching for carrots' tears and emotions. ----------------------- apologies for any incoherent parts...........or any missing formalities..............im new to this but keen to improviing ------------------

Title: Should we drink milk Content: Drinking milk can cause osteoporosis.

Title: Dairy is Bad For Your Health Content: I look forward to a good response! I will list the problems with dairy below in no particular order. Lactose Intolerance Dairy is comprised primarily of fats, carbohydrates, proteins, and water. One of these primary carbohydrates is lactose. As infants, mammals can process the lactose using an enzyme secreted from their intestinal villi called lactase. This breaks the lactose down into two simple sugars: glucose and galactose. Most people in the world (approx. 65%) have a drastically reduced ability to digest lactose after infancy, and increasingly so as the get older, resulting in the condition known as lactose intolerance. Mammals normally have a decrease in the gene expression which results in lactase production after infancy, as this enzyme is no longer required to digest mother's milk . http://www.google.com...). Some people groups, such as those of European decent, have inherited a change in a regulatory element which regulates this gene expression, allowing for sustained production of lactase in their small intestine (. http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...). For much of the world, lactose will cause gastrointestinal problems (. http://www.medbio.info...). For this reason alone, dairy is bad for the health of at least 65% of the world. Cardiovascular DiseaseSaturated fat is well known to be correlated with cardiovascular diseases (. http://www.plosmedicine.org...). Dairy products are typically rife with saturated fat which raise the level of LDL (bad) cholesterol in your blood resulting in an increased risk for cardiovascular disease (. http://www.heart.org...).CancerDairy consumption is strongly correlated with prostate cancer. While several mechanisms are possible, the correlation remains clear (. http://www.pcrm.org...). "Consumption of dairy products has also been linked to higher risk for various cancers, especially to cancers of the reproductive system. Most significantly, dairy product consumption has been linked to increased risk for prostate and breast cancers. The danger of dairy product consumption as it relates to prostate and breast cancers is most likely related to increases in insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1), which is found in cow’s milk. Consumption of milk and dairy products on a regular basis has been shown to increase circulating levels of IGF-1. Perhaps the most convincing association between IGF-1 levels and cancer risk is seen in studies of prostate cancer. Case-control studies in diverse populations have shown a strong and consistent association between serum IGF-1 concentrations and prostate cancer risk. One study showed that men with the highest levels of IGF-1 had more than four times the risk of prostate cancer, compared with those who had the lowest levels. In the Physicians Health Study, tracking 21,660 participants for 28 years, researchers found an increased risk of prostate cancer for those who consumed ≥2.5 servings of dairy products per day as compared with those who consumed ≤0.5 servings a day. This study, which is supported by other findings,also shows that prostate cancer risk was elevated with increased consumption of low-fat milk, suggesting that too much dairy calcium, and not just the fat associated with dairy products, could be a potential threat to prostate health. In addition to increased levels of IGF-1, estrogen metabolites are considered risk factors for cancers of the reproductive system, including cancers of the breasts, ovaries, and prostate. These metabolites can affect cellular proliferation such that cells grow rapidly and aberrantly, which can lead to cancer growth. Consumption of milk and dairy products contributes to the majority (60-70 percent) of estrogen intake in the human diet. In a large study including 1,893 women from the Life After Cancer Epidemiology Study who had been diagnosed with early-stage invasive breast cancer, higher amounts of high-fat dairy product consumption were associated with higher mortality rates. As little as 0.5 servings a day increased risk significantly. This is probably due to the fact that estrogenic hormones reside primarily in fat, making the concern most pronounced for consumption of high-fat dairy products. The consumption of dairy products may also contribute to development of ovarian cancer. The relation between dairy products and ovarian cancer may be caused by the breakdown of the milk sugar lactose into galactose, a sugar which may be toxic to ovarian cells. In a study conducted in Sweden, consumption of lactose and dairy products was positively linked to ovarian cancer. A similar study, the Iowa Women’s Health Study, found that women who consumed more than one glass of milk per day had a 73 percent greater chance of developing ovarian cancer than women who drank less than one glass per day" (. http://www.pcrm.org...).While this surely is not an exhaustive list of potential healthhazards faced by those who consume dairy, what I have included so far should be adequate for this debate's discussion.

Title: Chocolate Milk: The Harmful Stuff Content: What does the research say about sugar and flavored milk? Sugar is a contributor to the health problems that are harming our kids. Sugary drinks are often called “liquid candy”, and are an easy way for kids to consume large amounts of added sugar. Several studies have shown that drinking sugar-sweetened beverages is linked to obesity and risk for chronic disease;8 it seems to be the one part of kids’ diets most linked to increased weight.9 Flavored milk is a sugary drink, along with soda, sports drinks and many juice drinks, but the majority of these studies did not include it, and there has been very little research to directly investigate the effects of flavored milk on children’s health. The few studies that have been conducted were sponsored by the dairy industry. How much sugar is too much? Recommendations for sugar consumption vary depending on age, gender, and level of physical activity. Health experts recommend that sugar should come from our daily “budget” of discretionary, or spare calories. For example, girls between 9 and 13 who get less than 30 minutes a day of moderate to vigorous physical activity, only have 130 calories to spare.10 The American Heart Association recommends that no more than half of your discretionary calories come from added sugar,11 so in this case, just 65 calories. One serving of flavored milk provides 64 calories of added sugar, which would equal a whole day’s allowance. What about using cane sugar or non-caloric natural or artificial sweeteners? Replacing high fructose corn syrup with another sugar, such as cane sugar, does not reduce the added sugar content. Cane sugar is similar in composition to high fructose corn syrup (it’s 50% fructose), and neither is beneficial for children’s health when consumed in high quantities. Some processors are considering adding non-caloric sweeteners to milk, but adding any kind of sweetener teaches kids that foods need to be sweeter or flavored in order to be enjoyable, rather than encouraging them to appreciate the taste of whole, natural foods, such as plain milk. Furthermore, not enough research has been conducted to assure the safety of giving children alternative sweeteners on a regular, prolonged basis. If we take away flavored milk, will kids get less calcium and other essential nutrients? Isn’t it worth giving them the extra sugar to make sure they get these? A Dairy Council sponsored study reported that children who drink flavored milk consume more servings of milk daily.12 However, in the majority of age groups, the flavored milk drinkers did not have a significantly higher intake of calcium, or other nutrients such as phosphorus, magnesium, or potassium than kids who just drank plain milk. Other dairy products are a good source of nutrition and kids can get calcium from leafy greens, soy, nuts, and beans. Exercise also contributes to good bone health. MORE AND MORE SCHOOLS ARE MAKING THE MOVE TOWARDS PLAIN MILK Pioneering school districts – New Haven, CT; Boulder Valley, Colorado; Washington, DC; Ventura, California – have replaced flavored milk with white. They say that although selection drops initially, once the kids get used to it, the selection goes back up again. Many more districts are following suit – more than 50 in all, led by places like Los Angeles and Minneapolis this year. WILL SCHOOLS LOSE MONEY IF THEY SWITCH OUT FLAVORED FOR WHITE? Schools can still receive their full federal reimbursement for school lunch by offering just plain milk. Generally flavored milk costs more than white milk for the schools to purchase, though suppliers may vary. So school meal budgets should not be impacted by the switch. STILL HAVE QUESTIONS? HERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL FAQS: Why is the Food Revolution focusing on flavored milk? Jamie’s position on flavored milk is that it has no place in schools, and right from the start of the Food Revolution, he has advocated going back to plain, white milk. Milk is a great source of nutrients for kids, but the flavored varieties have more calories, are highly processed and contain unnecessary sugars and additives which don’t add any nutritional value. How can we encourage kids to choose white milk? Chef Ann Cooper, better known as the “Renegade Lunch Lady”, serves only white milk in the Boulder, CO schools. She says that it is important to serve the milk cold, and preferably in a glass as opposed to a carton.7 Kate Adamick, who has led the same change in districts in central California, says that educating the cafeteria staff and teachers around the sugar math helps them to explain the reasons to the kids. In Washington, DC, Jeff Mills started fresh in the fall and got very little push back. Switching at the start of a new semester is always going to be less controversial than half way through. Flavored milk can still be served on special occasions only, so the kids come to view it as a treat. Milk is a great source of nutrients for kids, but the flavored varieties have more calories, are a processed food product, and contain unnecessary sugars and additives, which don’t add any nutritional value. The food industry has convinced many schools and parents that they need to serve flavored milk to ensure kids get essential vitamins and minerals, and is backing chocolate and flavored milk with a multi-million dollar marketing campaign, led by “Raise Your Hand for Chocolate Milk.”4 Science and common sense don’t back that position up. Other dairy products are a good source of nutrition and kids can get calcium from leafy greens, soy, nuts, and beans. All that’s needed is to invest those marketing dollars behind good old, white milk. We know that with the right backing from the school community to promote plain milk, kids are happy to drink it. An 8 oz carton of flavored milk typically has about 4 teaspoons (64 calories) of added sugar. 1 Industry claims that beginning this school year chocolate milk will average 2.5 teaspoons (40 calories) of added sugar.2 Milk always has 12 grams (about 3 tsp) of its natural sugar, lactose.* If a child drinks flavored milk at breakfast and lunch they are getting 5-8 teaspoons of added sugar, 80-128 extra calories, every day. An 8oz serving size of Coca-Cola has just under 7 teaspoons of sugar. Over a 180-day school year, that adds up to almost 8 pounds of unnecessary sugar (and at least 14,400 calories!). Imagine if they drank it all 365 days… *Calculate your added sugar at www.jamiesfoodrevolution.com/MilkAction *Formulations and sugar content varies by school district. Read your labels! KIDS ARE DRINKING A LOT OF FLAVORED MILK AT SCHOOL About 70% of the milk consumed in schools is flavored.4 Low-fat chocolate milk is the most popular choice.5 80% of flavored milk sold in America is to schools. It’s the place kids get flavored milk. “Flavored milk is not the nutritional equivalent of unflavored milk. It is significantly higher in calories, sugar, and sodium, and usually contains artificial colors and flavors.” – Marlene Schwartz, PhD, Deputy Director for the Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesityat Yale University

Title: is chocolate milk good for you Content: hello everyone here is my opinion... i think chocolate milk is good for you because it's healthy for your body and teeth

Title: Beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk. Content: Again, thanks to Kleptin for responding. "My opponent's restriction on people who drive" One of my restrictions was on people who are *driving*, not on people who drive. I was basically saying don't drink and drive, because that may seriously injure, if not kill a person. This would be incredibly detrimental to one's health. "Another exception that my opponent lists are diabetics." This is one of my exceptions. Although you say that diabetes affects 8% of Americans (it is actually 7.8%), it only affects 2.8% of the World's population (http://en.wikipedia.org...). This number is a lot smaller than what you said and although it is large, it is not significant enough to be considered average. "And finally, a whopping 44% of Americans are taking at least one prescription medication, and 17% are taking at least three at once." About 3-4% of the World's population is abusing drugs 9http://www.prescription-drug-abuse.org...). Taking three prescription medication at once is abuse, and there is a chance it can kill you (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Also, anywhere from 50 to 75% of prescription medications taken in America are prescribed and used irresponsibly (http://books.google.com...). Abusing prescription drugs is like using recreational drugs, which can harm someone more than help them. "...heavily restricting massive amounts of people who for all intents and purposes make up the statistically average US citizen?" US has 306 million people out of the 6.77 billion in the world. In the year 2000, the US had just under 5% of the World's population (http://en.wikipedia.org...)(http://nationalatlas.gov...). Although these statistics may be correct, they are US, not Worldwide, statistics. "Asian Curse" You say that about 50% of the the Asian population has the "Asian Curse", but you do not take into account how many people with this condition still drink beer despite the fact. You are implying that everybody who has this condition cannot have a drop of alcohol. In fact, some people who suffer from this condition take ranitidine or famotidine an hour before drinking to counteract the effects of alcohol flush, AKA the "Asian Curse" (http://www.steadyhealth.com...). Some people even drink moderate amounts of alcohol to build up concentration levels of Alcohol dehydrogenase, the enzyme they were lacking in the first place (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Your case of alcohol flush is extreme, not everybody with this condition is as sensitive to alcohol as you are. There are still numerous amount of people who suffer from this condition and still drink moderately, they just can't drink copious amounts. My resolution states that moderate amounts of beer can be beneficial for a person. "Simply put, my opponent's assertion that this particular sensitivity means I am not average, is unjustified and a bit absurd. In fact, his entire argument around designating an "average" person is absurd." I was trying to avoid a semantic debate. You have even said that I said people who *drive* shouldn't drink beer when what I really was people who are *driving* shouldn't drink beer. "Even setting this aside, my opponent (despite what he as said previously) made no mention in this debate as to what he meant by "you". When people say "hey you!" in a conversation between the two of us, I assume he is referring to me. Thus, since this word "you" is used both in the resolution and my opponent's extended resolution, why would I believe otherwise?" Frankly, we can argue this point of "you" all we want, but it will be ultimately up to the voter to decide how they interpret the usage of the word "you" in this debate. Many chronic health conditions in humans are caused by cow's milk. The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology says that this type of milk is also the most common food allergen. Cutting milk out of your diet can reduce obesity levels, arthritis up to 90% and even get rid of acne (http://www.collectivewizdom.com...)(http://www.milksucks.com...)(http://www.milksucks.com...). Consuming cow's milk is linked to high levels of mucus in the body. This can lead to ear infections, difficulty breathing and runny noses, stomach problems and possibly even kidney problems. It is also believe that these high levels of mucus can line the intestine and harden, making absorption of nutrients difficult (http://www.milksucks.com...). Roughly 70% of African Americans, 53% of Mexican Americans, and 74% percent of Native Americans and 65-75% of South Americans are lactose intolerant. 90% of Asian Americans, 98% of Thais and Southeast Asians, 95% of Chinese, 88% of Inner Mongolians and 80% of Central Asians are lactose intolerant as well (http://www.pcrm.org...)(http://en.wikipedia.org...). Let us also not forget that China itself has 1/6 of the world's population, and I am not counting Japan, Korea, Thailand, Vietnam, etc. It makes sense. We are the only species on Earth that drinks other animal's milk. As adults, we have decreased levels of lactose activity in our body because we no longer need milk, not even human's milk to maintain a healthy diet. How does it make sense that we need other species' milk, milk that was meant for that species' babies, to be healthy? Thank you for your time.

Title: Chocolate milk is bad for your health Content: The instigator has failed to prove his/her statements as well as failed in observing the facts that have been copy and pasted into this debate showing the benefits of Milk Chococlate. VOTE CON!!! :)

Title: Milk-based diets are healthy and humane for veal Content: "What is wrong with veal?". Animal Defenders International. Retrieved 4.07.08 - "Milk-based diets are balanced rations that involve commercial milk replacers, which utilize surplus skim milk powder and whey – both byproducts of the dairy industry – in their production. These commercial milk replacers are of equal or greater nutritional value than milk straight from the dairy cow. A great deal of time and care are taken to train the young calves to drink their milk from pails, and during this training period their diet will be supplemented with water and electrolytes to ensure they receive adequate fluids and nutrition."

Title: MILK IS NASTY!!!!!! Content: Greetings. I'd like to thank my opponent for starting this debate. With that out of the way, let us proceed: In today's case, I (as the CON) will strongly negate my opponent's resolution that concerns Milk as being nasty. To counter this position, I advocate that Milk MAY be nasty. I define this position as being a position that takes the subjectivity of "taste" into account. Thus, I advocate that milk can taste "good" and "bad", but is not objectively nasty (as is my opponent's implication). It is the job of my opponent to conclusively prove that milk is objectively nasty. He has yet to provide an argument for this and I doubt he would be able to provide a valid one during the round. I now await my opponent's first rebuttal.

Title: Vegan can be Christians and any scripture against so is hypocritical Content: It is not a gift craft be my friends and unless he is caring for the cow the milk is no way come him in his labour. Neither furthermore does the milk have any revenant in holy circles as a gift from god. I do agree with my opponent genesis scripture and greatest thing is the milk is safe to drink that we form bonds with animals and yet to day we refer to them as livestock. I an imagine the world where winters are cold and barren so animals we a fundamental part of survival using them at times.

Title: Milk is good for your bones Content: Seems that there is more research in this as I thought. Although the fact that you copied and pasted practically everything that was in your post from one of your sources... You might have well just post the sources and leave. I wouldn't really call it a debate when you'd do something like that. Although now that I've done research on it I can't think of much of a argument against you. I probably should have looked up the topic before I jumped right in. Since this is my first debate I hope that you can forgive my ignorance. Sorry for the waste of time, but I'm going to have to forfeit this debate xD

Title: Eating animal products. Content: I apologize for not being more concise on what we were arguing over. We will be arguing over the morality of eating animal products.Thank you, Pro, for accepting my challenge.My ArguementAnimal products, including milk, eggs, cheese, meat, and seafood, are not necessary to sustain a healthy body. Therefore, a living creature that has feelings and can feel pain and can suffer must endure a life of torture then be slaughtered for the sake of taste, not health.Humans have become arrogant because we are more advanced than any other species on planet Earth. This causes humans to believe other creatures, through evolutionary processes (if atheist) or Creation (if Christain), have been placed here so humans may use them as they please.So, I ask you, should an animal endure pain and die so that humans may take part in enjoying them only for pleasure, not survival?

Title: choc. milk in schools Content: Chocolate milk contains more sugar and calories than regular milk, and in today's day and age there is an overwhelming percentage of kids struggling with obesity. A lot of people prefer the taste of white milk to chocolate milk, so any argument about flavor can be left out of it. If a kid won't drink milk otherwise and a parent is concerned about a calcium deficit, they can easily supplement with vitamins. My opponent has not shown that kids who drink chocolate milk are better at pull ups. It seems absurd to say a kid drinking chocolate milk can do more pull-ups than one drinking white milk. There are also a lot of vegans who are great athletes, so milk seems to not have any effect on athletic ability or energy.

Title: Water is The Best Choice For Our Daily Life Content: I believe that water is always be the best choice as a healthy drink. Although there are many healthy drinks such as herbal tea,goat milk,and even coffee. But, water still be the best choice because it is calorie-free and no additional sweetener. Besides,we cannot avoid the fact that H2O is one of the major element in human body. It is about 50-65 % in adult, and in infants is about 75-78%. So,we need more water in our daily life. Source: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... http://chemistry.about.com...

Title: Cereal Should be Poured into the Bowl Before the Milk Content: In the course of human events, and, in fact, all events, whether human in nature or not, it becomes evident that, under careful and meticulous contemplation, most things are subjective when it comes right down to it. One color cannot be objectively better than another color, humans cannot adjudicate regarding the definite moral standing of another person, etc. However, in spite of all of this, there remain a certain number of immanent truths. Various religious orders, philosophies and the like may come to mind, as, when speaking of an absolute code of right and wrong, dogmatic theists (and even atheists) are naturally brought to mind with the foremost subconscious priority. Right and wrong, though, is not what we are discussing here. We are discussing correct and incorrect. My opponent will likely want to bring up the argument that "people have the freedom to their own opinion, they can eat cereal in any manner that they choose as long as it doesn't hurt anyone" and other such nonsense. Any such digression, I warn you, should be labelled as irrelevant by the collective consciousness of you, the voters, the ostensible high court of this virtual ekklesiasterion. Morality is not the issue here. Cereal was meant to be poured in before the milk, just as there had to be an Earth for rain to occur on before rain could occur at all. The fact that rain falls on the already present Earth is not right or wrong from a moral standpoint. No, when speaking of morality, it simply is. It is, however, correct, by virtue of the fact that this is the way it was meant to be; this is the natural order of things. So it is with cereal and milk. Cereal was meant to be poured before milk. If cereal is poured after milk, the cereal and milk don't mix properly and you are left with a floating layer of dry cereal and unflavored, dull milk. Tell me, what is the point of putting the two substances in a situation that clearly dictates that they be mixed if you don't mix them properly? Furthermore, when cereal is poured after milk, you have to be careful about how much milk you put in, because the cereal will float on top and, more often than not, you will end up with an overabundance of milk. To achieve the perfect balance of milk and cereal could be considered an art form and requires many breakfasts of training. Surely the inventors of cereal didn't intend for breakfast to be an extra chemistry class. Cereals have even been designed to be poured before milk (well, all cereal has been, but I am talking out of the ordinary). Lucky Charms, for example, used to have (and may still have, I'm not sure) cool little marshmallows that changed shape or color when they sat in milk for a long time, in addition to turning the milk green. Given that the cereal and milk don't mix properly when the cereal is poured after the milk, thereby denying the desired effect, it is incorrect to eat Lucky Charms if they are poured after the milk. This is but one example of multiple such cases. Lastly, I would like to perform an experiment with the voters and readers of this debate. I would like you to Google image search "pouring bowl of cereal." Count to yourselves how many of the pictures that show either milk or cereal being poured into a bowl, in which the other is already present, show milk being poured first and how many show cereal being poured first.

Title: Chocolate milk is healthy. Content: Instigator has claims set the chocolate milk is healthy. However, Instigator has not taken a few things into consideration:Studies show that in 8 oz of chocolate milk, there is approximately 3 teaspoons of sugar is added to chocolate milk.[1] That's almost as much as soda, which the example I'll use, Cola, has 11 teaspoons in a 16 oz soda (44g of sugar), which is 4.5 teaspoons of sugar in an 8 oz soda.[2] Also, even if the chocolate milk was low-fat, fat is not the same thing as sugar.Why is sugar a big deal, you ask? Well, sugar is high in fructose, or fruit sugar. Too much of it can overload your liver, can also give you Type II cancer, raises your chorestrol level (giving you a higher risk of heart diesese), among many other things. And since it also releases dopamine, a "feel good" chemical, sugar is highly addictive.[3]Point: Chocolate milk is much less healthier than normal milk, since it contains much more sugar that normal lactose milk. Some thing as sugary and addicting as chocolate milk can cause one to contract many dieseses/cancers.I await Instigator's next argument.Sources:[1]http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[2]https://www.google.com...[3]http://authoritynutrition.com...

Title: Should we drink milk Content: I have drank milk most of my life and although as mace says it doesn't help your bones it tastes good lol

Title: Ban meat, dairy, and eggs worldwide. Content: Okay we're only on round two, so before I begin decimating your faulty logic I want to ensure you are familiar with how evolution works. Let's agree on the following fact before continuing:Fact: Domesticated livestock is specifically bred for human consumption. The associated by-products (dairy and eggs) come from said livestock. It only exists and thrives thanks to artificial selection. Artificial selection is the reason why these species and their by-products exist, and without continual human intervention, it would cease to exist whether its consumption by humans is legal or not.Agreed?

Title: Beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk. Content: I have greatly enjoyed this debate and hope to engage in another one with my opponent in the future. As for now, let us finish up. 1. Providing the actual source now is inadequate. As I have said before, the research is being used out of context. Does calcium excretion increase if protein levels increase? Yes, because as any student who took anatomy&physiology knows, charged proteins maintain an ionic balance and charged calcium ions can flow differently depending on the amount of protein in the blood. However, animal proteins are broken down into amino acids and their net charge becomes neutral. This in addition to the amount of protein in the blood made up by albumin and blood cells, as well as the fact that Dr. Heaney is talking about extracellular calcium as opposed to the calcium in bones, makes my opponent's point negligible in terms of calcium loss. This is simply a propaganda ploy. 2. I have never said that there is no trace of those chemicals in cows. I have provided sources showing that they have been tested to healthy levels, my opponent is making a strawman argument. Furthermore, my opponent's source is flawed. Anyone who indicates that inflammation is treated with antibiotics is either an idiot, or is talking about a bacterial infection. As such is the case, we can assume that antibiotics are not given for long term prevention, but when the need arises. In such case, the presence of antibiotics would be minimal. And yes, the chemicals are linked to cancer, but the concentration in milk is nowhere near a cancerous dose in any way, shape or form. A point that my opponent's biased source cares not to mention. 3. In regards to testing for beta lactams: beta lactam antibiotics make up the most common types of antibiotics. The other families are not widely used in cows and many of them are heat labile or denature quickly in hostile environments outside body pH and temperature. Thus, they are a minimal concern. 4. My opponent in his next section, uses some pretty sneaky tactics. First of all, he puts my source into question by stating that a citation is needed. However, the citation is only needed on a statement saying that a panel agreed with the FDA's declaration that milk contained safe levels of animal hormones. The actual FDA statement contains a citation. 5. In addition, my opponent criticizes the "huge jump". Yes, while the jump is big, the numbers were still low, and as I have said before, the study DID take into consideration the fact that milk was widely used. The source even stated that as the reason the investigation was being performed. 6. In such case, how is my opponent to know that this cow's milk is actually going to be used? It seems to me that he just google-imaged a picture of a cow with swollen udders. Logically speaking, FDA moderated farms and centers for milk production would be mechanized such that this could be prevented. 7. As I have stated, I was referring to the original journal articles regarding the experiments that my opponent's site has cited as a source. In other words, the source of your source said nothing about milk. How are they connecting the dots? This is to show that my opponent's source is drawing information incorrectly. I have provided sources that show that IGF-1 is at safe levels in milk, and that the assumption that it causes problems in the body is founded on half-logic. 8. In reference to the biased and unreliable experiments/trials http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent did not scan through well enough. See "Constroversies" "none of the studies were performed in a manner to create an unbiased scientific opinion" "indicated no statistically significant findings" "Evidence for efficacy of these diets is currently unsubstantiated" 9. I was not declaring that moderate drinking causes liver damage. I was stating that those who are on prescription medication to allow for moderate drinking would be susceptible to liver damage. 10. It actually is not relevant. Number of "drug abusers" is irrelevant to this debate because your definition of a "drug abuser" is incorrect. However, the number of people on prescription medication is relevant. In developed countries, use of prescription medication is almost exactly the same as in the U.S. In underdeveloped countries, the benefits of beer that you list are of no consequence because the benefits are only good for a civilization with cardiovascular impairment. Developing countries would be more focused on sustenance, and milk would be healthier for them than beer in that regard, because their children are starving. 11. I am familiar with the generic and brand names of these drugs, but are you also aware that OTC does not mean "take as you please"? Have you ever tried the combination of alcohol and sleeping pill? Zantac should NOT be taken with alcohol, the fact that you are advocating it is like a stab to the professional side of me. 12. In that case, we will not discuss non-alcoholic beer because I find it ridiculous anyway. However, I accepted your definition of "milk" and apologize for including soy milk. However, I can very freely mention lactose-free milk if the milk simply has the lactose removed or cleaved. Things are added to beer and they can still be called beer. Simply adding lactase to milk destroys the lactose and makes lactose intolerance irrelevant. Removing the lactose or the fat is perfectly fine too, because the fluid itself came from the cow or the goat, but lactose is a sugar, a solid. You made no mention of the solid. I would also like to note that while watching "Yakitate Japan!", an anime about making bread, I learned that goat milk actually has little to none of the controversial problems that cow's milk has, and have found verification online, since my opponent has mentioned goat milk several times. http://altmedangel.com... http://www.goatworld.com... http://naturalmedicine.suite101.com... http://www.crohns.net... http://www.associatedcontent.com... Goat milk is consumed more than cow milk worldwide, and those with lactose intolerance can somehow consume goats milk without any problems. In addition, goat milk is devoid of all the high-industry chemicals, has healthier fats and cholesterol that help rather than harm, has a different type of casein that people are insensitive to, and is responsible for nearly no allergies. Goat milk is widely used as a replacement for cow milk worldwide. My opponent's burden in this debate is to show that beer is more healthy than milk. He himself has specified that the debate was limited to milk that comes from animals. I have not only shown most (if not all) of his sources against cow milk to be questionable, but also that his arguments for the "average person" show that the inclusion of alcohol in an average person's lifestyle will be more harmful than helpful. Furthermore, in my curiosity as to why my opponent has mentioned but not spoken about goat milk, decided to research it for my opponent, and found that it has absolutely none of the defects my opponent complains about in terms of cow milk. Thus, I have not only reduced my opponents points to the speculation that it is, but also provided an example of a milk that is far healthier than beer. Thank you for the debate. I urge a CON vote.

Title: Beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk. Content: I must correct my opponent first of all, in that I did read his response. It was not specified in the first round as to how an average person is defined. In fact, the parameters he sets up are so strange that it becomes impossible to adapt them in any manner of coherency. I will illustrate the importance of this later. I will start my response by saying that my opponent's failure is not in his presentation of data (which I believe to be faulty anyhow), but in his very resolution. My opponent was simply wrong when he said that I am excluded from the realm of "average healthy person". In fact, I believe there are huge, blatant errors in his classification of an "average" person to begin with. What my opponent lists as exceptions in proper detail are the following: 1. Pregnant women 2. Diabetics 3. People on prescription medication 4. People who drive or operate heavy machinery. The percentage of pregnant women in the population is not negligible, but still a small percentage. However, my opponent's key argument about the "Average" person seems to conflict heavily with his resolution statement. A. My opponent's restriction on people who drive. . http://wiki.answers.com... The number of people who drive in America is roughly 30 million, an extraordinarily conservative calculation based on the following facts derived from my source: 1. There are roughly 60 million registered cars 2. There are roughly 2 cars to each person This does not include cars which are functional and unregistered, or people who share cars/rent cars. As such, the most conservative would be 30 million out of 300 million or roughly 10% of the population. If my opponent is excluding drivers from his definition of an "Average" person, what will he restrict next? People who eat hamburgers? People who watch baseball? B. Another exception that my opponent lists are diabetics. There are currently 24 million diabetics in this country and not a single one of them is "average" according to my opponent. Diabetes is one of the most prevalent medical conditions today, affecting over 8% of all Americans. While this number may seem insignificant, please consider how many people in a room of 100 will suffer dire consequences from what my opponent proposes. C. And finally, a whopping 44% of Americans are taking at least one prescription medication, and 17% are taking at least three at once. . http://www.medscape.com... A key factoid for any Pharmacy student or medical student in general is the knowledge that alcohol interacts negatively with most if not all prescription medication. The physiology is complicated to explain, but generally speaking, both alcohol and prescription medications are processed by the liver, and simultaneous processing can lead to disastrous results. Alcohol in moderate amounts may have a slightly positive effect on blood pressure if taken over time and regularly, but when combined with blood pressure medications they can have terrible side effects, amplifying the effects of blood pressure medications. Since most blood pressure medications work throughout the day, and since alcohol has a much shorter cycle, it can have unpredictable effects on people taking those medications. Cholesterol lowering drugs, statins, interact violently with alcohol, with many being completely contraindicated since it could lead to liver toxicity and death. . http://askville.amazon.com... Both Cholesterol and Blood pressure medications make up the vast majority of prescription drugs in America. It is absurd not to categorize them as "average". How then, can my opponent continue to speak about beer being healthy for the average person, when he clearly has no idea what the average person is, and when he is heavily restricting massive amounts of people who for all intents and purposes make up the statistically average US citizen? In addition to those issues, my opponent also has poor justification for classifying me outside the realm of "average". It would be acceptable for him to say that my allergy to alcohol is rare, but it should not discount me from his population. It would be more extraordinary for a person to not have any allergies at all than to react badly to alcohol. There should be no question that I am both an average person and healthy, because I am. It just so happens that I have a sensitivity to alcohol. Though not exactly an allergy, my hypersensitivity to alcohol stems from the "Asian Curse", a lack of the enzyme Alcohol dehydrogenase that breaks ethanol down into acetic acid. The lack of this enzyme causes the toxic intermediate acetaldehyde to build up in larger concentrations for people like myself, leading to terrible side effects and exaggerated effects of alcohol consumption in shorter lengths of time. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Half of the Asian population is categorized as having this sensitivity, thus, amongst my fellow Asians, I am average. Let us also not forget that China itself has 1/6 of the world's population, and I am not counting Japan, Korea, Thailand, Vietnam, etc. Simply put, my opponent's assertion that this particular sensitivity means I am not average, is unjustified and a bit absurd. In fact, his entire argument around designating an "average" person is absurd. Not only is he restricting a massive number of "average" Americans (Americans who would be greatly harmed by beer as opposed to milk) from his resolution, but he also inexplicably wishes the audience to believe that the presence of an ethic trait is enough to categorize a person as abnormal. Even setting this aside, my opponent (despite what he as said previously) made no mention in this debate as to what he meant by "you". When people say "hey you! " in a conversation between the two of us, I assume he is referring to me. Thus, since this word "you" is used both in the resolution and my opponent's extended resolution, why would I believe otherwise? I did not understand my opponent's overly complicated explanation as to what is "average" or not, but I consider myself a healthy and average person. What law states that the average person must react well to alcohol? As such, I must restate my argument: My opponent is addressing me in both resolutions. I would have much more health detriment from drinking beer than from drinking milk. Thus, the resolution is negated. I look forward to my opponent's response. Thank you.

Title: Eating animal products. Content: You are welcome.My ArgumentActually, studies have proved that a life with animal products is a healthier life. For example, milk gives you more calcium then anything that's vegetarian. Humans have lived longer with products such as what you stated. Most animals are put to peace before they are butchered, and not tortured.I understand your point, but I'd like to point out the food chain. Humans were made to eat animals, animals were meant to eat other animals, other animals to bugs, and so on. Some people have become arrogant and over-hunting animals, but most federal government is trying to put a stop to it. As I stated above, most local farms don't torture their animals before they butcher them, that is why my family only buys local agriculture and meat. Although I have heard of companies who torture their animals before they butcher them, which is animal cruelty, which brings us to another topic.

Title: Smoking Should be Banned Content: Final round. Okay, so, to support my "unreliable and informal" source, here's a credible source: . http://news.bbc.co.uk.... "A survey suggests more than 400,000 people quit smoking as a result of the smoking ban. ", and "Nearly two fifths (39%) said the ban had helped keep them out of hospital. " As can be seen, banning of smoking truly has a positive affect. Your argument about milk: You cannot compare milk to cigarettes. While milk has some negative effects, it has more positive effects. In contrast, cigarettes just make you "Feel good" and have terrible disatrous consequences on the human body. The benefit of smoking is overwhelmed by the negative health effects it gives out. "Where in the constitution does it say anything about the government being required to keep citizens healthy? " It doesn't, but the government nevertheless has tried hard, with the FDA program as well as many other medicine programs, such as health care. If the government didn't try, citizens would be angered and possibly revolt against the bad government. So to answer your question, yes, the government is required to keep citizens healthy for its own state and being. And because smoking is so difficult to quit, the government needs to put a mandatory law upon it. It's similar to a parent stopping a child from doing something bad. You need to "Ground" the child in order to stop him/her from doing the bad thing you don't want it to do. "the numbers do not have any impact on the logic". You are wrong here. Let me exaggerate the numbers a bit more, okay? Let us say, instead of 6 million people dying each year, half of the population on the face of the earth died last year. That would be incredibly impacting to the world, destroying governments around the world, societies, and the rest of the people would struggle to live on. Cigarettes are being introduced by ads, and teenagers are curious to a taste of cigarette. If smoking was spread across the globe, and many many became addicted to it, unable to quit, then my situation would happen--half of the population would die within a year. Had smoking been banned, the number would have been much more controlled and low. Yes, they can buy from the black-market, just like when the alcohol was banned, but the number is very small so as to keep the government from noticing. The ban of smoking will cause a massive decrease of smokers, and thus, leading to the eventual decline of smoking deaths and diseases, enlighting the massive burden on hospitals as well as the money a family has to pay in order to cure the disease obtained from smoking. In conclusion smoking should be banned. Although it cannot be really firmly enforced, it would definitely have a positive effect on the health of the general population.

Title: Plants are Mammals Content: Hello Debate.Com, I am here today to argue that plants actually are mamals okay. First off plants are mammals because they have body fluids just like normal humans and they use it to carry essential materials through their body. And example of this would be grass blood or tree sap. Also the plants nurture their young (the fruit) by giving it food and stuff while it is still attached making grow. Tree milk is not the same as human milk but it usually has a whitish and thin consistensy. It is usually not seen very often because it goes directly into the mouth of the fruit being feed. There is also coconut milk that plants drink here is my link to tree milk https://www.merriam-webster.com... Also the plants have spines in the form of cell wall and roots but it doesn't look the same as humans or others Also finally many plants have hair like flowers and peaches meaning that many plants have fur which is a trait that only mammals have making it certain that a plant is a mammal so in short plants have many traits in common with mammals so all plants are mammals unlike platypus which is not a mammal it is a fish...

Title: A vegetarian diet is healthier for humans. Content: Meat (and dairy) eaters eat unhealthily as they take in far too much fat, protein and cholesterol, and often far too little fibre and vitamins. Eating a varied range of cereals, fruits, nuts and vegetables is a delicious way of getting all the vitamins, minerals, fibre and protein your body needs.

Title: MILK IS NASTY!!!!!! Content: SORRY FOR THE CONFUSION. .. . MY INITIAL CAUSE FOR STARING THIS DEBATE WAS BECAUSE OF ALL THE STUFF THAT'S IN IT AND SEING WHAT OTHERS HAD TO SAY AGAINST IT. .. .. fOR OTHERS CONCERN LET ME SAY THAT THERE IS MORE IN MILK THAN JUST MILK! !! ! Dairy cows are constantly inpregnated to keep the milk flowing and they are constantly hooked up to machines that cause blisters and scabs. .. . Those scabs are then on the udders which are connected to the machines that milk the cow. .. . Now the scabs don't just disappear. .. .. .they end up in the milk that people drink. .. .. . That is what makes milk nasty, rather that is what I was refering to in this particular debate. .. .. .. .. .

Title: Meat, dairy, and eggs should be banned worldwide. Content: Pro tries to maximize the happiness of everyone under the philosophy of utilitarianism. Everyone includes all humans and all sentient animals. Pro contends that banning meat, eggs, and dairy foods would make both humans and animals happier. http://psychology.wikia.com...

Title: human enhancement Content: another substance that is a human enhancement is protien drinks. Protein drinks are very bad for young people usaully under the age of 18 but they can also be harmful to older people with health conditions. Most people use protein drinks to replace regular every day meals which does not give you the nutrients your bodys need. some of the problems protien drinks can cause to your body is risks of heart diseases or kidney problems. that is another reason why human enhancement is bad.

Title: choc. milk in schools Content: i think that choc. milk should be allowed in schools because it contains vitamins, minerals, and other objects that will get us through the day without falling asleep in class (trust i have done it the consequences are not good)

Title: Purchasing milk from the supermarket endorses animal cruelty Content: Hello, there!!! Today, I will be debating on the motion that purchasing milk from super markets doesn't endorse animal cruelty, instead it dissuades us from doing so. Now, if you go deeper, you will understand that purchasing meat from markets endorses this cruelty, not purchasing milk. Because, for exracting milk, you need not do anything which imposes serious kinds of threat to those domestic animals. And if somebody like you or I do that, the feeling will grow among you that we should be sympathetic to animals. If milk is not bought from the markets, neither this opportunity nor some other benefits are available. Last of all, if you are benefitted enough from this business, then and only then you will be able to provide it with its necessities, otherwise not possible at all. Now if you cannot provide it with what it wants, it cannot be called mercy/humanity, can it? So come on and understand the fact well. Coming on in the next round.......

Title: The LA school board made the right decision in banning chocolate and strawberry flavored milk Content: Kids who drink plain milk will indeed absorb more calcium than those who drink chocolate milk:According to my opponent’s link, a child who consumes one carton of plain milk will absorb 6 more milligrams of calcium than a child who consumes a carton of chocolate milk. This difference may be insignificant in the short-term; however, it can make a big difference in the long run. If a student drinks a carton of plain milk every day, he or she will absorb an additional 2,190 milligrams of calcium every year. Banning flavored milk will not decrease overall milk consumption in the long-term: My opponent mentioned a study which found that elementary school children drank 35 percent less milk at school on average when flavored milk was removed. As it turns out, this study was funded by the Milk Processor Education Program (MPEP), the dairy industry’s national marketing group (1). The MPEP has spent over a million dollars to promote chocolate milk in schools. As extensive research has shown, the conclusions of a scientific study usually support the interests of the study's financial sponsor (2-3). Therefore, the results of this research article should not be weighted heavily. When we consider only objective research, we realize that banning flavored milk will not lead to decreased consumption in the long-term. For example, let’s examine the implications of limiting the availability of flavored milk in New York City schools. Beginning in 2006, flavored milk could be purchased only three days a week (4). In this year, most NYC schools also stopped serving whole milk. Initially, there was an 8% decline in milk purchases following the implementation of these new policies. Several students were probably not accustomed to drinking low-fat, plain milk. As a result, some kids may have initially avoided drinking milk altogether. However, by 2009, milk purchases had actually increased by 1.3% (4). This proves that children will eventually learn to accept unsweetened, low-fat foods. As Dr. Marlene Schwartz concluded, “It is probable that, immediately following removal of flavored milk from schools, children will drink less milk. Who really is surprised that, given the option, children prefer the taste of flavored milk to unflavored milk? Research with both animals and humans show that we all like the taste of sugar. However, examining what happens in the short-term is inadequate; the relevant question is what happens in the long-term when children are only served unflavored milk” (5). Conclusion: By serving our children flavored milk, we’re only training them to prefer, and eventually over-consume, sugar-sweetened beverages. Scientific studies show that banning flavored milk does not decrease overall milk consumption. Thus, all of our schools should stop serving flavored milk. I urge everyone to vote pro!References:(1) http://yaleruddcenter.org...(2) http://www.bmj.com...(3) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...(4) http://journals.lww.com...(5) http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Title: MILK IS NASTY!!!!!! Content: My opponent has stated that milk is nasty in his original round as well as in the resolution. Thus, it is still his job to counter my case which referred to milk "tasting nasty." As for milking being nasty due to its origins, this argument suffers from the same flaws. To some, make me seem nasty due to the fact that it can come out of cow's utters, but to others, it most certainly doesn't. Thus, the flaw in my opponent's case is still the matter of "subjectivity." Furthermore, his argument goes about assuming that milk can only come from cows, but this is false too. Many of you may realize that milk is produced by other living creatures, but it can also be artificially produced. Furthermore, even in cow milk, milk producers put it through the process of pasteurization (a process which eliminates all harmful bacteria) before selling it to the market. I now stand ready for my opponent's final rebuttal.

Title: choc. milk in schools Content: Regular milk provides the same benefits, without the excess sugar.

Title: Chocolate be banned in elementary and middle schools Content: I think that chocolate milk should be banned from all schools because I think that schools and kids are getting poisoned. By what you ask? CHOCOLATE MILK!!!!!!!!! IF YOU WANT TO FIND OUT HOW JUST KEEP READING HAHAHA!!!!! I think that you should stop serving chocolate milk at lunch are Health problems, Too much sugar in chocolate milk, and how much you serve it Health problems Everyone thinks chocolate milk is good but did you know it can have major health problems for kids who drink it. Some might say that chocolate milk has no health problems but trust me it does. Some of those health problems are Cancer, heart disease, obesity, and diabetes.According to the American Institute for Cancer Research,"Chocolate milk contains added sugars and therefore more calories that can lead to more overweight and obesity." In other words, it can lead to you dying and not being able to live a long life of playing sports and seeing the new technology.So those are the health problems of chocolate milk

Title: Should we drink milk Content: Its highly unlikely because they drink our water that we pay for we deserve something in return (milk)

Title: Ban meat, dairy, and eggs worldwide. Content: Con and Pro disagree on a curious paragraph Con posted. The paragraph is curious because there is no impact. In other words, Con fails to demonstrate how the claims in the paragraph impact upon the resolution. Here's the paragraph: "Fact: Domesticated livestock is specifically bred for human consumption. The associated by-products (dairy and eggs) come from said livestock. It only exists and thrives thanks to artificial selection. Artificial selection is the reason why these species and their by-products exist, and without continual human intervention, it would cease to exist whether its consumption by humans is legal or not. Agreed?" Con Lets break down this paragraph into a series of claims. Claim by Con "Fact: Domesticated livestock is specifically bred for human consumption." Pro Agrees the claim is correct. Claim "The associated by-products (dairy and eggs) come from said livestock." Con Pro agrees the claim is correct. Claim "It only exists and thrives thanks to artificial selection." Con Pro agrees with this claim. Claim "Artificial selection is the reason why these species and their by-products exist and without continual human intervention, it would cease to exist whether its consumption by humans is legal or not." Con Pro disagrees with this claim. Now lets clarify why Pro disagrees with the one of the four claims of Con. Specifically Pro disagrees that farm animals and wild animal are different species. " Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species. " [28] Pro's claim 1 : Wolves and dogs are the same species. Warrant : "Wolves, Coyotes and Dogs are the Same Species" [29.] Impact: No clue as to Con has not provided an impact. Since I already made my argument I'm just disproving whatever Con states until he/she states how this subject impacts the resolution. If wolves, coyotes, and dogs are the same species then other farm animals must be the same species as their wild counterparts. Pro's claim 2: There are only two species of cows Warrant: "There are actually two species of "cows" or cattle, as is the proper term. The one most commonly seen around in the milking parlour and in pastures are Bos taurus species. These are what are deemed "European" cattle, originally descended from the now-extinct wild Auroch. The B. taurus species come in many colours, breeds, and sizes. The second species is called Bos indicus." [30.] Impact: Disproving Con claim that farm species would become extinct without human intervention. Pro's claim 3: There are over 800 breeds of cattle Warrant: Over 800 breeds of cattle are recognized worldwide" [31]. Impact: Clarifying the difference between breed and species. Pro's claim 4: Farm animals species could survive without human interference Warrant: "As time progresses, the hand-raised squirrel can be allowed to spend more and more time outside, but food and shelter must be provided. Some squirrels will gradually become more and more independent. Others will happily live outdoors, but will always require some degree of care when it comes to food and housing." [31]. Impact: Disproving Con's claim that farm animals could not survive without human interference by demonstrating orphan squirrels can be rehabilitated to be released into the wild. Summary: Since Con fails to show how this subject of farm animals breeds impacts on the resolution Pro is just disproving Con notions. Pro does not know if the subject created by Con is a red herring or has an impact on the resolution. Either way Con seems to be confusing breed and species. Yes, approximately 800 breeds of cattle would revert back to their wilds selves without human intervention. Yet, no cow species would become extinct. Finally Pro wants to thank Con for the debate. The debate been most interesting and educational. Links 28. http://dictionary.reference.com... 29. http://x-evolutionist.com... 30. http://www.quazoo.com... 31. https://suite.io...

Title: Ban meat, dairy, and eggs worldwide. Content: And now it’s time to expose the flaw of Pro’s argument in round two. We can dismiss Pro’s afterthoughts outright: II. Health A. Possible to be a healthy vegan. B. Detrimental effects of consuming animal products. III. Environment A. Trophic levels B. Amazon and ocean destruction. Everyone knows that omnivorous diets can be every bit as healthy as any other, and nobody reading this exchange honestly believes that banning meat will save the planet. So let’s focus on Pro’s focus – Pro’s main argument. Pro spent the most time on this. It was the first thing on Pro’s mind and the first thing in Pro’s outline: ANIMAL CRUELTY Pro is expecting to win this debate arguing that consuming meat, eggs, and dairy is an act of cruelty. Cruel compared to what exactly? Read through the rounds of arguments above and you'll discover what Pro is trying to avoid. Reality! Pro lives in a make believe world where in the animal kingdom, predators ripping their prey to shreds is natural (and hence not cruel), but human beings doing the exact same thing is an act of cruelty. In Pro’s version of reality, human beings are not a part of the animal kingdom but rather somehow above it, but only sometimes. Other times we are below it. Never are we an equal member. This myopic ideology runs contrary to everything evolutionary biology has to teach us about reality. This is why Pro tried to argue against artificial selection as the primary reason chickens (for example) are bred to be so fat they buckle under their own weight, yet somehow in the same breath wanted to convince you these same chickens would somehow last over a week with naturally selected predators in the wild. The worst part is this, read the resolution again and truly digest it (no pun intended): Resolution: Meat, dairy, and eggs should be banned on the planet Earth. The entire planet? Are you serious Pro? Conclusion: Pro is a sociopath and an ideologue who thinks the rights of every animal on the planet are slightly more important than are yours. To make matters even worse, Pro’s resolution incorporates agents of an imaginary one world government to force you to be like Pro. No thank you! Here is Pro’s summary from Round 2: V. Summary I have provided a multitude of reasons to eat vegan and to ban consumption of animal products. Remember the USA pledge "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Let liberty and justice extend to animals. Ban eggs, meat, and dairy. Vote Pro. It goes without saying that this pledge was written by a homo sapien. Perhaps Pro might consider affording all homo sapiens the same courtesy and rights as Pro does to the rest of the animal kingdom. Vote your conscience. Vote Con. Oh and here's my afterthought Stupidape (love the handle by the way) ... back to evolutionary biology no less. It is pretty well established within the scientific community that the only reason you have the mental capacity to even ponder ridiculous ideas like banning nature, is because your ancestors ate meat. Cheers! http://www.npr.org...

Title: eating meat is not immoral Content: My thanks to Dairygirl for posting this debate. The reality is this: I eat meat, but for a number of different considerations I am not proud that I do so. 1. Humans are omnivorous, not true carnivores. 2. Humans moreso than any other animal have true choice about what we eat, from our ability to shape the environment to support any plant or animal life, to our knowledge of nutrition that has allowed to isolate what components truly make up a healthy diet, we have less need to eat meat than any other omnivore or carnivore on the planet. To neglect this true choice is indisputably immoral. 3. Meat is wasteful. The amount of crop land it takes to feed a herd of cattle is heinous compared to how that land could be used to grow grains that would feed many more people. Even growing protein-rich crops like Tofu, Quinoia, and Saytan yields enough food to feed more people way longer. 4. Meat is self-destructive. While in very small quantities, meat can be healthy, meat has a high potential to raise cholesterol and contribute to obesity. The addictive nature of meat makes overindulgence in it to be more likely than many other foods. 5. Meat is hurtful. It is a basic reality that in order to eat meat we must harm other creatures. Even early man was not comfortable with this fact and constructed ritual to excuse or be forgiven for the act of taking life to sustain their own. Modern man no longer needs meat to lead healthy, long lives, and thus needn't burden himself with the guilt and moral discomfort for any reason than the sheer pleasure of eating meat. Harming others for ones own pleasure is the definition of immorality. For all these reasons, I urge readers to vote CON. Over to you, PRO!

Title: The American Government does not have any ones intrestin their heart but their own. Content: The government confirms we need essential fatty acids to produce brains cells and the like while also producing a healthy balance of hormones as well as the chemicals to allow us to think and feel.. EFA are whats in a mothers milk that allows survival and healthy growth. Yet prescribed to us to several servings of COW milk intended by nature to provide a baby CALF with momma cow essential fatty acids to produce brains cells and the like while also producing a healthy balance of hormones as well as the chemicals.. There is no better balance of EFA for humans found in plants, or a plant more intimately connected to the human brain and body than the Hemp seed. .. yet our government has made laws against growing this plant which also prevent the industrial uses of Hemp.. but what about before this ban? i could be here for a long time telling you about history but DO NOT TAKE MY WORD ON ANYTHING; RESEARCH IT YOURSELF=) *If all fossil fuel and their derivatives, as well as trees for paper and construction, were banned in order to save the planet, reverse the Greenhouse Effect and stop deforestation; then there is only one known annually renewable, natural resource that is capable of providing the overall majority of the world's paper, plastics and textiles; meet all of the world's transportation, industrial and home energy needs; provide about 30% of the world's medicines, while reducing pollution, rebuilding the soil and cleaning the atmosphere, all at the same time…and that substance is the same one that has done it before, for the last five to 10 thousand years, until about 125 years ago… No one has taken the $100,000 challenge to prove me wrong. Why? Because I am right. The U.S. government has been lying to us since the early 1900s. Do economic interests and the police have more to say than the people about the future of our planet? How angry are you for being lied to by the U.S. government about Cannabis Hemp? Are you willing to make a stand right now? No one can dispute this information and knowledge. You have to join me in this fight. Either you are on the U.S. government's side or you are on the Earth's side with me! Jack Herer http://webcache.googleusercontent.com...

Title: is chocolate milk good for you Content: Hello - I have accepted this debate, topiced "Is milk Chocolate good for you". My opponent has begun by saying that chocolate milk is good for me. My position is that Chocolate milk is not good for me at all, and I look forward to seeing why my opponent thinks I am wrong about myself.

Title: Chocolate milk is bad for your health Content: Pro i hope this will be a learning session for you regarding the benefits of Chocolate Milk vs Milk (Normal Milk as you call it). First let me state that Milk can be 1%, 2%.3.7% fat or powedered. All of these affect the Nutrition Values. But for the sake of the argument we will use the Milk 1% and the Chocolate Milk (not reduced fat). Chocolate Milk Nutrition Values Calories 83 % Daily Value* Total Fat 3.4 g 5% Saturated fat 2.1 g 10% Polyunsaturated fat 0.1 g Monounsaturated fat 1 g Cholesterol 12 mg 4% Sodium 60 mg 2% Potassium 167 mg 4% Total Carbohydrate 10 g 3% Dietary fiber 0.8 g 3% Sugar 10 g Protein 3.2 g 6% Caffeine 2 mg Vitamin A 1% Vitamin C 1% Calcium 11% Iron 1% Vitamin D 12% Vitamin B-6 0% Vitamin B-12 5% Magnesium 3% Milk Nutrition Values Calories 42 % Daily Value* Total Fat 1 g 1% Saturated fat 0.6 g 3% Polyunsaturated fat 0 g Monounsaturated fat 0.3 g Cholesterol 5 mg 1% Sodium 44 mg 1% Potassium 150 mg 4% Total Carbohydrate 5 g 1% Dietary fiber 0 g 0% Sugar 5 g Protein 3.4 g 6% Vitamin A 0% Vitamin C 0% Calcium 12% Iron 0% Vitamin D 0% Vitamin B-6 0% Vitamin B-12 8% Magnesium 2% As you can see from the above tables taken from google (just google search Milk or Chocolate Milk) you can deduce that Chocolate Milk has more Vitamin C, More Iron, more Magnesium, more Vitamin D (12% more) and more Vitamin A. Milk has 5g less sugar than Chocolate Milk (has 10g) in a 100g sample. If fat is a problem for you then choose reduced-fat Chocolate Milk. Therefore Chocolate Milk is far more nutritious than Milk. Drink Chocolate Milk pro. Its good for you :)

Title: White Milk is Better Then Chocolete Milk Content: Yeah but you are not drinking chocolate milk 24/7! That doesn't mean that . im saying that it is better because it has that sweet taste for every person who has a sweet tooth and want that taste instead of eating candy like crazy!

Title: Should we drink milk Content: Milk may taste good, but imagine this, a cow drinking a frogs milk...

Title: Meat, dairy, and eggs should be banned worldwide. Content: 1 A. i do mostly agree,but i don't believe animals are equal to humans.God said we are to rule over the animals and they are food for us.Animals shouldn't be neglected or killed in a painful way but they are not humans and shouldn't be treated as humans. 1 B. I agree that factory farming is wrong and should not be allowed.My solution is to raise animals outside in fenced enclosures that cover many acres.They would be outside in their native environment and would live like they would if they was in the wild. People would care for the animals and they would be slaughtered in a humane way. This way animals would. live happy and healthy lives,and humans would get the food we need. 1 C Would. not be causing suffering if raised in the way stated above. 1. D. first off I believe it's our right to eat meat and dairy products.YIt would be very hard for most people to survive on just a vegetarian diet.Lack of nutrients would cause people to get malnutrition and diseases caused by malnutritionment would be a crisis. 1. E disagrees. 2 A. Would be hard for everyone to eat this way. 2. B. Cholesterol,and fat is not unhealthy if not over eaten. 3 A. Its called the food cycle,nothing to worry about. 3. B. what about all the acres of forest that will have to be cut down for fields of crops? It would do more harm to the environment if we destroy the environment by making more room for crops to grow.

Title: MILK IS NASTY!!!!!! Content: Okay.....ummmmm......milk is nasty and wrong!!!!! There's more than just milk in that milk mustache of yours!!!!!!! But hey!?!?!?!?!?! who doesn't want puss in their milk in the mornin'!?!?!?!?!

Title: Purchasing milk from the supermarket endorses animal cruelty Content: Before I begin I didn't define milk. By milk I meant cow's milk. Milk " a white liquid produced by a woman to feed her baby or by female animals to feed their young; especially : milk from cows or goats that is used as food by people : a white liquid produced by a plant" [1] Merriam-webster Outline I. Prove animal sentience and ability to suffer. II. Prove suffering from milk production. III. Establish purchasing of milk causes suffering. IV. Milk in not needed for human survival. V. Prove animal cruelty VI. Prove endorsement VII. Rebuttal of Con's argument VIII. Links I. Prove animal sentience and ability to suffer. Suffer " : to experience pain, illness, or injury : to experience something unpleasant (such as defeat, loss, or damage) : to become worse because of being badly affected by something " merriam-webster.com [2] "After 2,500 Studies, It's Time to Declare Animal Sentience Proven (Op-Ed)" Marc Bekoff livescience.com [3] "With a focus on vertebrates, this section presents a brief discussion of what constitutes good evidence of the capacity to experience pain. The discussion emphasizes the strength of the evidence that all mammals (including rodents) are able to experience pain; raises the possibility that fish may feel pain" National Research Council (US) Committee on Recognition and Alleviation of Pain in Laboratory Animals. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2009. [4] As a cow is a mammal, mammals can feel pain, therefore cow can feel pain and thus the ability to suffer. II. Prove suffering from milk production. "All forms of dairy farming involve forcibly impregnating cows. This involves a person inserting his arm far into the cow"s rectum in order to position the uterus, and then forcing an instrument into her vagina. The restraining apparatus used is commonly called a "rape rack."" Humanemyth.org [5] "Most cows used for dairy production are kept indoors, with some having access to outdoor concrete or dirt paddocks. They are often forced to stand on hard surfaces"something their hooves are not designed for. This contributes to lameness, a condition where cows" feet become inflamed, making it painful to walk. Additionally, cows in the dairy industry are forced to suffer through: Widespread Infections: Unnaturally high milk production leads to mastitis, a painful bacterial infection causing a cow"s udder to swell. In 2007, 79% of farms that reported permanently removing cows from their herds did so because of mastitis." ASPCA.org [6] III. Establish purchasing of milk causes suffering. Some are of the train of thought "the milk is already produced, so no harm is being done by purchasing the milk." Yet, purchasing the milk at the supermarket will eventually lead to suffering. The simplest explanation is if nobody bought any milk, demand would rapidly fall. Supply would follow suit. Less cows would be needed to met the supply, therefore less cows being bred into existence and finally less cruelty. The opposite is also true. If more people bought milk more demand would be created, more supply, more cows, and more cruelty. IV. Milk in not needed for human survival. A.Vitamin D "People who live in areas receiving plenty of sunlight develop darker skin from excess melanin and need more sun exposure such as two hours or more to get their vitamin D. Those with lighter colored skin require less exposure, anywhere from 15 to 30 minutes." examiner.com/ [7] "Vitamin D is a fat-soluble vitamin that is naturally present in very few foods, added to others, and available as a dietary supplement. It is also produced endogenously when ultraviolet rays from sunlight strike the skin and trigger vitamin D synthesis." ods.od.nih.gov [8] B. Calcium "Collard greens, cooked1 cup357" Reed Mangels, PhD, RD [9] That's 357mg of calcium in a cup of collards. "Dairy milk has long established itself as a rich source of calcium, containing about 300 milligrams of calcium per 8-ounce serving. " fitday.com [10] From above one can see that a vegan can meet his/her nutritional needs. Besides they are plenty of health vegans. Including Al Gore and Bill Clinton. huffingtonpost [11] V. Prove animal cruelty Animal cruelty which is distinct from suffering is now established since one does not need to drink milk to survive. "Cruelty to animals, also called animal abuse or animal neglect, is the human infliction of suffering or harm upon any non-human animal, for purposes other than self-defense or survival." wikipedia [12] VI. Prove endorsement At the supermarket you are in public. People can see you. If you pay by check or credit card you must sign. You are publicly signing for the purchase of the good. Since your purchase of milk will cause animal cruelty, when you sign for your purchase you are literally endorsing animal cruelty. Even if you pay cash you are still giving your approval and support publicly through non-verbal communication. VII. Rebuttal of Con's argument "Hello, there!!! Today, I will be debating on the motion that purchasing milk from super markets doesn't endorse animal cruelty, instead it dissuades us from doing so. Now, if you go deeper, you will understand that purchasing meat from markets endorses this cruelty, not purchasing milk. " Con Buying both milk and meat from the supermarket endorse animal cruelty. There is no way to know what product people would buy in lieu of milk. They could buy meat, but fruit is just as likely. Since meat production is very similar, its safe to say if purchasing milk endorses animal cruelty so does purchasing meat. Thank you for accepting this debate. I look forward to your argument. VIII. Links http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.livescience.com... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.humanemyth.org... http://www.aspca.org... http://www.examiner.com... https://ods.od.nih.gov... http://www.vrg.org... http://www.fitday.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... https://en.wikipedia.org...

Title: Ban meat, dairy, and eggs worldwide. Content: Outline I. Animal cruelty A. Establishing sentience. B. Suffering exists from egg, meat, and milk production. C. Buying these products causes suffering. D. Not necessary for survival to eat these foods. E. Animal cruelty to eat these foods. II. Health A. Possible to be a healthy vegan. B. Detrimental affects of consuming animal products. III. Environment A. Trophic levels B. Amazon and ocean destruction. IV. Rebuttal of Con V. Summary VI. Links I. Animal cruelty A. Establishing sentience Without sentience animals are no different than trees. Alive, but unable to feel pain nor suffer. Therefore establishing sentience is of utmost importance. "Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates."" [5]. "Fish Are Sentient and Emotional Beings and Clearly Feel Pain" [6] "So some fish like massages. Most probably feel pain. Many have good eyesight, a great sense of smell, well-developed hearing abilities, and the ability to both create and detect electric currents in the water." [7] I have now clearly established that animals are sentient and have the capacity to feel pain and suffer. I'm confident I covered all the animals that are normally eaten in 1st world countries. Mammals, birds, and fish. B. Suffering exists from egg, meat, and milk production. Look no further than factory farming. Factory farming constitutes over 99% of farm animals. "A factory farm is a large, industrial operation that raises large numbers of animals for food. Over 99% of farm animals in the U.S. are raised in factory farms, which focus on profit and efficiency at the expense of animal welfare."[8] The cruelty of factory farming is common knowledge. The burden of proof lies on Con to disprove factory farming cruelty. As for small scale local farmers. The trend of several small farms becoming one large farm exists. Watch King Corn as proof. [9]. That being said measures for animal welfare and humane treatment have failed. "For example, an animal farmer named Joel Salatin, famous for slaughtering chickens in the movie Food, Inc., recently said in the media that he is in the "healing industry" and called his farm a "sanctuary". Contributing to this confusion, some animal protection organizations now use romanticized imagery of animals on bucolic "humane" farms which can easily give the public the impression that voting for a given legislative initiative or purchasing the "right" kind of animal products will lead to a life for exploited animals not much different than that at a sanctuary. Many of us working in animal advocacy feel that this trend is disastrous, and represents an ongoing victory for the meat industry in its effort to co-opt animal advocacy by steadily shifting the public dialogue away from whether or not it is right to use and kill animals to what is the right way to use and kill animals. "[10] The only logical recourse to end animal suffering is to ban all animal food sources. Ban meat, dairy, and eggs. C. Buying these products causes suffering. This is simple supply and demand. If nobody bought any of these products, production would grind to a halt almost immediately. The reverse is true. If demand suddenly doubled, supply would follow suit. D. Not necessary for survival to eat these foods. B12, protein, calcium, and omega-3s can all be ingested from plant sources. B-12 comes from bacteria. Protein is found in small amounts or greater in just about every food. Legumes have lots of protein. Calcium is found in leafy greens. Omega-3s are divided into three categories. ALA, DHA, and EPA. ALA is found in flax seeds. DHA in seaweed. EPA in microalgae. "Microorganisms are the only natural sources of B(12)-derivatives" [11]. Kidney beans have 8g of protein and only 53 calories per cup. Also of note kidney beans contain some calcium.[12] Kale has 9% of your calcium needs and is only 33 calories per serving. [13]. "Flaxseed is an alternative to marine products. It is one of the richest sources of the plant-based `9;-3 fatty acid, alpha-linolenic acid (ALA)." [14]. "Vegetarian sources of DHA come from seaweed." [15]. "considering microalgae oil as a vegetarian source of EPA and DHA." [16]. It should be clear that a person can meet his or her nutritional needs on a vegan diet. Thus it is not necessary to eat animal products to live. E. Animal cruelty to buy these foods. Since self-survival can no longer be used as an excuse, I now contend that purchasing animal products causes animal cruelty. II. Health A. Possible to be a healthy vegan. As seen above its possible to survive as a vegan. Not only that but you can thrive. There are many healthy vegan celebrities this is common knowledge. B. Detrimental affects of consuming animal products. I could make this section very long. Suffice to say its common knowledge that cholesterol, fat, and saturated fat exist in animal products and are unhealthy. Since this is common knowledge the burden of proof rests on Con to prove animal products are healthy. III. Environment A. Trophic levels "Three hundred trout are needed to support one man for a year. The trout, in turn, must consume 90,000 frogs, that must consume 27 million grasshoppers that live off of 1,000 tons of grass. -- G. Tyler Miller, Jr., American Chemist (1971)" [17]. This quote illustrates the waste and indulgence of eating higher on the food chain. Instead we should strive to eat lower on the food chain. B. Amazon and ocean destruction Large areas of land are required for free roaming grass fed beef. "The cattle sector in the Brazilian Amazon is the largest driver of deforestation in the world, responsible for one in every eight hectares destroyed globally. Efforts to halt global deforestation emissions must tackle this sector. " [18]. Fishing practices such as dynamite fishing are destructive to ocean habitat. "Many fishing practices are extremely destructive to delicate habitats - particularly vital fish breeding grounds like coral reefs and seagrass meadows." [19]. IV. Rebuttal of Con "Meat, milk, and eggs are natural phenomenon that occur in nature. Banning nature is absurd. You can't ban nature." Con Pro: You know what I meant. I would rephrase this to ban meat, milk, and eggs sale, import, export, and manufacture. "And I suggest you make a strong case because evolutionary biology begs to differ ... big time." Con Pro: Bare assertion and I have evidence to the contrary. A ted video [20.] Christina Warinner explains that humans have no known adaptations to meat and only a few to dairy. This nytimes article explains tubers were eaten in paleolithic times. "But Mark G. Thomas, an evolutionary geneticist at University College London, and his colleagues argue that there was another important food sizzling on the ancient hearth: tubers and other starchy plants." [21]. V. Summary I have provided a multitude of reasons to eat vegan and to ban consumption of animal products. Remember the USA pledge "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." [22]. Let liberty and justice extend to animals. Ban eggs, meat, and dairy. Vote Pro. VI.Links 5. http://www.livescience.com... 6. https://www.psychologytoday.com... 7. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 8. http://www.aspca.org... 9. http://www.kingcorn.net... 10. http://www.humanemyth.org... 11. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 12. http://nutritiondata.self.com... 13. http://nutritiondata.self.com... 14. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 15. http://umm.edu... 16. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 17. http://www.globalchange.umich.edu... 18. http://www.greenpeace.org... 19. http://wwf.panda.org... 20. http://tedxtalks.ted.com... 21. http://www.nytimes.com... http://www.heritage.org...

Title: Tea making. Milk should go in after and not before the tea. Content: I assume my opponent has come round to the idea that tea is best made milk last. Good luck and more importantly good tea in the future!