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
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 15,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
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
- wool
- silk
- beeswax
- 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.
This debate may as well have been settled with pro's first sentence in R2, when pro stuck to e veganism vs carnivore comparison, when con had clearly built his case on vegetarianism being the better option (tying nutritional benefits of milk and such for poor people). That became four rounds without contest to con's case that vegetarianism is the right way to life, veganism was easily superseded as not the right way of life for the majority of people.
Vote bump.
Bruh, I literally stated my reasons why multiple times. Just read my text again. Why won't you listen to me?
Also, you didn't answer me on why you changed your stance.
in round 1 I already stated you offered no unique benefit over vegetarianism.
"Pro still refuses to tell us unique benefits over vegetarianism. It is hard to believe that merely milk and eggs would torture animals unjustly, and it would actually encourage protection and raising of those animals."
I've told you multiple reasons.
"lack of cows grazing on the plains"
Most people already just use machines, it wouldn't make a difference.
And since when were you advocating for vegetarianism? You've repeatedly showed support for the meat industry for 4 rounds.
I believe Intelligence is referring to this: http://www.fao.org/3/x5304e/x5304e04.htm
The cultivation of livestock is necessary to support the land.
"If we don’t cultivate land with animals ever, we would have little to no wheat and rice on the planet."
????
Just because they are less smart than animals allow us to slaughter them with ease?
Nonsense. If we don’t cultivate land with animals ever, we would have little to no wheat and rice on the planet.
Also, if we didn't have farm animals, we would save a lot more of those plants.
Plants aren't sentient.
I think the righter way of life is to create pills with massive amounts of nutrients so you don’t need to eat for a day or a week so on. Eating delicacies then becomes just a luxury and entertainment and isn’t mandatory. Reduce the costs and then hungry poor people will more likely to be full again and will be happy.
I know this sounds like a Akhenaten proposal, but being vegan is hurting plants after all.
I personally am not vegan or a vegetarian. But, I found their arguments to be more strong. I want to see if someone can make a more convincing argument.
If you ate meat 3 minutes ago, why are you advocating for veganism?