Veganism Is The Right Way Of Life
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
Veganism: the practice of eating only food not derived from animals and typically of avoiding the use of other animal products.
Right: morally just
Way of life: the habits, customs, and beliefs of a particular person or group of people
- leather goods
- soaps, candles, and other products that contain animal fats, such as tallow
- latex products that contain casein, which comes from milk proteins
- cosmetics or other products that manufacturers test on animals"
When one considers a way of life, one must think of the practicality of living in that particular manner. First, pro says meat is unnecessary for diet, but makes no source to back up this claim. The protein is excellent for boosting muscles, and many indulge in order to avoid taking drugs or doing more dangerous things to their body.
Due to the cheapness of meat, it is unfortunate but the poor have increased their demand by a significant amount. For those living with very little money, it seems unlikely that veganism would be the right way to live. Not only so, they would be unable to drink milk, eat eggs, cheap and great sources of nutrients. For their unhealthy bodies, it seems too big a sacrifice to give up every food product related to animals.
In addition, pro tells us that it is possible to change the people's ideals to eat less animals, but this does not lead to eating AND less use of animal products.
As Pro has offered no unique benefit over vegetarianism, I ask him to explain why veganism is the best way to live, rather than vegetarianism.
Pro says she only is against processes that harm the animals, which means the problem is the meat industry actively causing unnecessary harm. Through reformation, we may keep this industry, which generates great amounts of revenue, and is necessary for the poor to live due to its cheap costs. Clearly, we can accept meat by reducing harm to the animals.
Pro once again has no source that we must torture the animal while it is alive.
She has also completely dropped the idea that the meat industry generates billions of dollars, and would be extremely difficult if not impossible to abandon in favor of a "right way to live".
I'll extend the fact that lifestock[sic] actually cultivate the land and help it grow, so it's not as bad as pro says if we adopt great reformations.
Also, she's given up the environmental factor.
Pro offers no back up to why the meat industry will be replaced and how.
It is incredibly profitable and many love the taste of meat. It seems impossible to replace the meat industry.