Instigator / Pro
4
1457
rating
4
debates
25.0%
won
Topic
#2726
Veganism Is The Right Way Of Life
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
gugigor
Tags
Parameters
- 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
Contender / Con
7
1502
rating
41
debates
35.37%
won
Description
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
Round 1
Pro
#1
Why would you willingly hurt an animal that has done nothing to you? Especially since it is simply unnecessary to eat meat and animal products.
(I am only talking about people who can afford to change their diet.)
But not only does farming hurt the animals, it also hurts the environment. "Meat produces more emissions per unit of energy compared with that of plant-based foods because energy is lost at each trophic level." "Agriculture uses more freshwater than any other human activity, with nearly a third required for livestock, so meat production in water-stressed areas is a major competitor with other uses of water, including that required to maintain natural ecosystems." "We cut down forests to create pasture as well as arable land to meet the demand for animal feed. Livestock production is a major source of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and other pollutants, in some areas makes major demands on scarce water resources, and can exacerbate soil erosion." -Godfray, H., Aveyard, P., Garnett, T., Hall, J., Key, T., Lorimer, J., Jebb, S. (2018, July 20). Meat consumption, health, and the environment. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6399/eaam5324.full
"History suggests that change in dietary behaviors in response to interventions is slow. But social norms can and do change, and this process can be aided by the coordinated efforts of civil society, health organizations, and government. However, successful interventions to improve health and environmental objectives are likely to require a good understanding of the impact of meat consumption on these outcomes, as well as a license from society for governments and other bodies to implement a suite of interventions to stimulate change" -Godfray, H., Aveyard, P., Garnett, T., Hall, J., Key, T., Lorimer, J., Jebb, S. (2018, July 20). Meat consumption, health, and the environment. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6399/eaam5324.full
Con
#2
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.
Secondly, Pro tells us of the environment impact, but doesn't tell us how bad it actually is. He only says it is better than the alternative. Due to the cheapness of meat, it is unfortunate but the poor have increased their demand by a significant amount (https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2015/july/growth-in-meat-consumption-for-developing-and-emerging-economies-surpasses-that-for-the-developed-world/). 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 one website (https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/325478#risks-and-considerations) notes, "vegans also extend these principles beyond their diet and will try, where possible, to avoid any product that directly or indirectly involves the human use of animals. These products can include:
- 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"
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.
Round 2
Pro
#3
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.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662288/ (go to Health Concerns About Plant-Based Diets) To summarize, this source says that it is simply unnecessary to eat meat because there are other sources where you can get the same nutrients as meat and animal products.
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.
As I said in the beginning, I believe that only people who can afford to go vegan should go vegan.
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.
I am only opposed to animal products that hurt the animal.
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.
If they could receive the animal products without using non consensual insemination (artificial insemination) to impregnate the female animals, I would not be opposed to such things like milk. Because if this were to happen to a human, you'd call it rape.
Con
#4
pro claims her source supports veganism, but the conclusion says that vegetarianism is healthy, without offering any unique advantages of veganism over vegetarianism. Not only so, it also states "The key is to focus on eating a healthy diet, not simply a vegan or vegetarian diet". As you can see, veganism cannot be "the right way to live", if another healthy style can balance out meat and vegetables.
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.
Round 3
Pro
#5
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.
You cannot receive meat without killing or torturing the animal by cutting off pieces of its flesh while alive. You may be talking about lab-grown meat however; it is even more expensive.
And like I said, only people you can afford to be vegan, should be vegan. However, if you are talking about people buying food from a grocery store; meat and animal products tend to be more expensive than grain products, fruits, and vegetables.
Con
#6
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". Also, she's given up the environmental factor. I'll extend the fact that lifestock actually cultivate the land and help it grow, so it's not as bad as pro says if we adopt great reformations.
Round 4
Pro
#7
Pro once again has no source that we must torture the animal while it is alive.
It was hypothetical.
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 understand that, I never said this was all going to be done in a year. Also, the meat industry within time, will be replaced.
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.
Source?
Also, she's given up the environmental factor.
What gave you that impression? Don't worry, I'll go back to it in the 5th round.
Con
#8
the source is http://www.fao.org/3/x5304e/x5304e04.htm.
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.
Round 5
Pro
#9
Pro offers no back up to why the meat industry will be replaced and how.
I did, it's in the first round. '"History suggests that change in dietary behaviors in response to interventions is slow. But social norms can and do change, and this process can be aided by the coordinated efforts of civil society, health organizations, and government. However, successful interventions to improve health and environmental objectives are likely to require a good understanding of the impact of meat consumption on these outcomes, as well as a license from society for governments and other bodies to implement a suite of interventions to stimulate change" -Godfray, H., Aveyard, P., Garnett, T., Hall, J., Key, T., Lorimer, J., Jebb, S. (2018, July 20). Meat consumption, health, and the environment. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6399/eaam5324.full'
It is incredibly profitable and many love the taste of meat. It seems impossible to replace the meat industry.
With the exception of taste; they said the same about slavery in the United States. Tradition is not a good reason to keep unethical things the same.
Overall, veganism is better for the environment,[1][2] better for the animals,(as it doesn't slaughter the animals) and may even be better for your health,[3] it is also cheaper to skip the meat and animal products while in the grocery store, as well as being more ethical (as it does not slaughter the animals, as I've stated before).
Con
#10
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. She also failed to counter the livestock argument -- if everyone felt that the animals were restricted in freedom, the plants based industry would also suffer due to lack of cows grazing on the plains. Therefore, vegetarianism seems more likely the right way to live, not veganism. Vote for con.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
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?