The majority of people should be vegan or vegetarian

1709

rating

564

debates

68.17%

won

Description

Vegan: a person who does not eat any food derived from animals and who typically does not use other animal products.
Vegetarian: a person who does not eat meat, and sometimes other animal products, especially for moral, religious, or health reasons.

BOP = shared
Pro: The majority of people should be vegan or vegetarian
Con: The majority of people should NOT be vegan or vegetarian

Round 1

01.12.2023 05:27PM

Pro

Overview

As likely expected, to deliver an argument to the effect that the majority of people should become either vegan or vegetarian, I will analyze various impacts that moving towards vegan and vegetarian diets with have on society, its collective health, and the environment. Lastly, we will analyze the impacts of our consumer choices on the sufferings of other beings and conclude that for this set of reasons, the majority of people should go vegan.

a. Environmental Reasons

Altering one's diet toward veganism or vegetarianism yields considerably beneficial results for the environment. As Joseph Poore from the University of Oxford delineates: “Changing your diet to avoid animal products reduces your emissions for a typical global consumer by 28 percent, land use by 75% and water pollution by around 60%,” and further, "[d]iet change is the single biggest way to reduce your impact on the environment. Not just emissions, but other environmental indicators: biodiversity, water use, habitat loss, deforestation, nitrogen and phosphorus pollution." The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine further documents that these empirics are both confirmed and endorsed by the United Nations. From these points of research, it is evident that if people were to adopt vegan or vegetarian diets, the environment will be greatly improved from its entailed benefits toward resource and ecological conservation.
Other large studies such as Analysis and valuation of the health and climate change cobenefits of dietary change also inform us that [t]ransitioning toward more plant-based diets that are in line with standard dietary guidelines could reduce global mortality by 6–10% and food-related greenhouse gas emissions by 29–70% compared with a reference scenario in 2050." Mortality will be expounded upon on b.1.
According to Oxford: "Avoiding meat and dairy is ‘single biggest way’ to reduce your impact on Earth." With research showing that "without meat and dairy consumption, global farmland use could be reduced by more than 75% – an area equivalent to the US, China, European Union and Australia combined – and still feed the world," the planet will receive a significant benefit if the majority of people took the action to reduce their animal product consumption by adopting a veganism or vegetarian diet.

Pandemic Considerations

Observing the paper The Animal-Human Interface and Infectious Disease in Industrial Food Animal Production: Rethinking Biosecurity and Biocontainmen by Jay P. Graham, Ph.D. et.al. we find that the impact of animal agriculture towards the development of enhanced bacteria, viruses, diseases, and likelihood for epidemic and pandemic outbreaks is profound. "in 2004 indicates that the odds of H5N1 outbreaks and infections were significantly higher in large-scale commercial poultry operations as compared with backyard flocks. These data suggest that successful strategies to prevent or mitigate the emergence of pandemic avian influenza must consider risk factors specific to modern industrialized food animal production."
Additionally, studies like "The infectious disease trap of animal agriculture" demonstrate that "intensification of animal agriculture through confinement and industrialization has directly led to the emergence of viruses including Nipah and H5N1 influenza (“swine flu”) (18) and antibiotic-resistant infectious bacteria including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli." Dangerous strains of viruses emerge from the prevalence of animal agriculture, and the demand for these products creates the size of the industries we see today. From this, as Hayek concludes in the study, "[p]reventing zoonotic diseases require international coordination to reduce the high demand for animal-sourced foods." Now the question is what is a good if not the best way to reach this goal, and evidently, a shift to vegan and vegetarian diets will considerably reduce the demand for animal products.

b. Health

This is extensive to the point that one of the key measures we can take to reduce large-scale impositions of global suffering from pandemics and animal-borne diseases is reducing our demand for and consumption of meat products. There are several imperative health benefits to veganism or vegetarianism. Some studies reported upon by BBC for example found that people who eat vegan and vegetarian diets "have a lower risk of heart disease, but a higher risk of stroke, possibly partly due to a lack of B12" and further that "those who didn't eat meat had 10 fewer cases of heart disease and three more strokes per 1,000 people compared with the meat-eaters."
Apart from vastly being imperative towards the health and wellness of individuals, the reduction in severe medical emergencies likely comes with prospective savings in the medical field. Mayo Clinic also confirms what we would expect of the converse research shows that "people who eat red meat are at a higher risk of death from heart disease, stroke or diabetes. Processed meats also make the risk of death from these diseases go up."

b.1 Mortality and Global Level Population

Analysis and valuation of the health and climate change cobenefits of dietary change also analyze the number of annual lives that will be saved from switching to different degrees of a plant-based diet. Respectively, from (1) moving to fewer animal-sourced foods (2) moving to vegetarianism, and (3) adopting veganism:

(1) "...[m]oving to diets with fewer animal-sourced foods would have major health benefits (Fig. 1A). Compared with the reference scenario, we project that adoption of global dietary guidelines (HGD) would result in 5.1 million avoided deaths per year [95% confidence interval (CI), 4.8–5.5 million] and 79 million years of life saved (CI, 75–83 million) (Fig. 1A and SI Appendix, Fig. S2). (2) "[t]he equivalent figures for the vegetarian (VGT) diet are 7.3 million avoided deaths (CI, 7.0–7.6 million) and 114 million life years saved (CI, 111–118 million) and for the..." (3) "vegan (VGN) diet 8.1 million avoided deaths (CI, 7.8–8.5 million) and 129 million life years saved (CI, 125–133 million)."

Peer-reviewed studies within the field of medical sciences support the notion that with an increased degree of moving away from animal products, especially adopting veganism and vegetarianism will result in 7-8.1 million fewer deaths per year.
Marco Springmann's analysis as cited above also evidences that "45–47% of all avoided deaths were from reduced coronary heart disease (CHD), 26% from stroke, 16–18% from cancer, and 10–12% from type 2 diabetes mellitus," confirming the proposition that overall, a vegan diet and a decrease in animal product consumption is a net benefit to the health of individuals.

c. Animal Suffering

Studies estimate that 95 "is the average number of animals spared each year by one person's vegan diet." This is the demand evaluative impact of a vegan diet. This is not only sparing the lives of animals alone, but the degrees of torturous suffering experienced by them in factory farming systems. It is certainly immoral to cause suffering that is unnecessary, or that need not be imposed, and it is clear that the majority of people do not require animal products, especially with extensive studies showing that vegan and plant-based diets are both healthier (as shown above) and significantly cheaper (Oxford Univerity Research, The global and regional costs of healthy and sustainable dietary patterns: a modelling study).

Conclusion

From this we derive that we don't need to exploit animals to cause needless suffering, we have healthier and cheaper options that are in culmination, better for the environment and society as a whole. And because of this, I think it is clear that the majority of people should be vegans or vegetarians.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/07/210706153026.htm

01.13.2023 05:23PM

Con

Needless suffering turned on its head

Why should all meat eaters that enjoy meat suffer unnecessarily? Why should all farmers, transporters, butchers, fishermen and whatever else that may have little expertise outside the meat and fish trade be put out of work?

Everything in Pro's case ignores the how of the debate's topic. I am here to whack it back on the table like a delicious steak.

Meat processing in the UK employs around 97,000 people

britishmeatindustry.org

In 2019, the U.S. food and beverage manufacturing sector employed 1.7 million people, or just over 1.1 percent of all U.S. nonfarm employment. In thousands of food and beverage manufacturing plants located throughout the country, these employees were engaged in transforming raw agricultural materials into products for intermediate or final consumption. Meat and poultry plants employed the largest percentage of food and beverage manufacturing workers, followed by bakeries, and beverage plant

usda.gov

We can say '97,000 isn't much' and '1.1% doesn't matter'. Okay. So, why does the animal suffering matter that much that everyone must have absolutely 0 meat+poultry+fish in their diet?

Pro tells us that 'needless suffering' is to blame but what of the needless poverty that may come from all turning vegetarian? What of the animals?

Yes, that's right, what do you think is going to happen to all the farmed animals when the majority of people are vegetarian and vegan overnight? If people read this debate and obeyed Pro's advice, there would be a mass slaughter of the kinds you cannot fathom.

Pro is actually supporting anti-natalism on a massive global scale, we can't even find the data on how many farm animals are involved in the meat trade. Just so you know even fish are farmed these days, depending.

Not only would all these creatures be slaughtered overnight, not only would people be out of work, stockholders turned bankrupt etc but what exactly happens instead?

The other side of the story when the worldgoes hippie vegan/itarian

Alright, we 'saved the environment' but how? Do you see anywhere in Pro's entire thesis about how we ensure that the land space, resources and expertise for better?

In fact, what I would argue is this:

Every shred of scientific work being put into meat and fish alternatives is a waste of science, relatively speaking.

We could be curing cancer, AIDS heck we could be focusing instead of making tasty meat and fish alternatives on making alternative body organs for transplant and Pro's outline doesn't specify how many scientists are burning energy day in day out, using their time, recources and potential and throwing it into a fancy alternative meat and fish product.

It is sad to even think about.

Plant-based meat substitutes taste and chew remarkably similar to real beef, and the 13 items listed on their nutrition labels -- vitamins, fats and protein -- make them seem essentially equivalent.

But a Duke University research team's deeper examination of the nutritional content of plant-based meat alternatives, using a sophisticated tool of the science known as 'metabolomics,' shows they're as different as plants and animals.

Meat-substitute manufacturers have gone to great lengths to make the plant-based product as meaty as possible, including adding leghemoglobin, an iron-carrying molecule from soy, and red beet, berries and carrot extracts to simulate bloodiness. The texture of near-meat is thickened by adding indigestible fibers like methyl cellulose. And to bring the plant-based meat alternatives up to the protein levels of meat, they use isolated plant proteins from soy, peas, and other plant sources. Some meat-substitutes also add vitamin B12 and zinc to further replicate meat's nutrition.

However, many other components of nutrition do not appear on the labels, and that's where the products differ widely from meat, according to the study, which appears this week in Scientific Reports.

The fact is that meat works, fish is excellent for us to consume. All we have to do is refine the techniques and where we fish, farm and how we use the land and treat the creatures and we'd be able to put all science to actually useful work.

Instead, we are focusing on making a nice steak that isn't meat just so we can feel good that we wasted the same tech that could make artificial organs for transplant on that.

Round 2

01.14.2023 05:14PM

Pro

Overview

Most of round two will be focused on rebuttals, but I will make notes on the fact that various lies were made about my case. Con even goes as far as to say that my actions in making an argument for the resolution are actually supporting "anti-natalism." I urge the voters to ignore these points as well as various other immaterial or unsubstantiated claims that may be brought to light.

a. Environmental reasons

Dropped. Extend.

Pandemic Considerations

Dropped. Extend.

b. Health

Dropped. Extend.

b.1 Mortality and Global Level Population

Dropped. Extend.

c. Animal Suffering

This is the only argument I can detect somewhat of a response to. In the previous round, I argued that because evidence suggests that going vegan or vegetarian will reduce the demand for animal products which will reduce them being bred into existence to endure suffering and torture in factory farms, and because we conjunctively do not need to eat animals, that we should not take actions that cause needless suffering. Con says:

Pro tells us that 'needless suffering' is to blame but what of the needless poverty that may come from all turning vegetarian? What of the animals?

First, pro has provided no empirical evidence for some sort of trend statistically or practically significant casual shift from non-economically impoverished conditions to economically impoverished conditions as a result of the majority of people going vegan or vegetarian. He has only vaguely gestured that people may lose their jobs which does not evidence this.
In my first rebuttal, I will give both an empirical and a principled response to this, the first humoring the point after being briefly granted and the second disproving the notion altogether.

Rebuttals

I. Transition Evaluation

"Job Losses"

Con here states or implies the possibility that people can lose their jobs if the majority of people shifted to vegetarian or vegan diets.
First, I almost struggle to see the relevance to the topic, people lose their jobs all the time as a result of social shifts. For example, many people who work in the newspaper industry lost their jobs as the prevalence of digital media increased. This does not mean people should continue to read printed newspapers just because there is an outdated industry there. As society finds more efficient and beneficial practices, we move towards them, and the evidence I have presented has shown these diets to be just that.
The fact that someone could lose their job if people no longer use a product is not an argument that people should continue to use that given product anymore the fact that horse-drawn cart makers could lose their jobs is not a good reason that people should not drive cars. This notion is simply irrelevant to whether or not the majority of people should pursue these diets even if granted.
However, I won't grant this in any capacity. Researchers for studies on the prospective impact of plant-based diet shifts such as reported here "expect that these job losses will be offset by growth in other sectors, including flour milling, maize processing and oilseed farming," so it appears that con is incorrect about the true net labor impact of this change in consumption. Furthermore, other studies such as Jobs in a net-zero emissions future in Latin America and the Caribbean predict that "the plant-based agriculture sector in 2030 will enjoy a net creation of 19 million jobs while animal-based agriculture will face a potential loss of 4 million jobs with decarbonization."

Do you see anywhere in Pro's entire thesis about how we ensure that the land space, resources and expertise for better?

This sentence does not appear to be coherent, because it contains an error. To focus, when con says: "...how we ensure that the land space, resources, and expertise for better," there is a missing regular verb. If what is meant is "used" for better, it would be no different from how we operate under any prominent generally capitalist economic model. People sell and purchase land, build homes, businesses, etc, and market forces serve as the drivers for innovation.

"Meat and Fish Alternatives..."

Con cites some sources about plant-based meat etc. No part of my case made any reference to plant-based meat, cultured meat, etc, so I will dismiss this as irrelevant. One can be vegan with or without wanting to eat fake meat. My argument is that the majority of people should go vegan because it will produce significantly better outcomes for the environment and the planet, produce significantly better health outcomes for people, and reduce needless animal torture.

II. Other

Yes, that's right, what do you think is going to happen to all the farmed animals when the majority of people are vegetarian and vegan overnight? If people read this debate and obeyed Pro's advice, there would be a mass slaughter of the kinds you cannot fathom.

First of all, nothing in the resolution entails that this transition should take place overnight. All I am arguing is that the majority of people should be vegans or vegetarians. This transition could pragmatically and naturally take place gradually over years of time, whereas con must argue it should not happen at all.
Secondly, there are various options for these animals that will gradually be bred less and less into existence with a vanquishing demand. Because of this, there will not be a need to engage in the killing of these animals, rather, we should eventually be expanding our apparatus of resources toward their conservation. On my view, for example, animal sanctuaries should be constructed for this purpose. "When there are fewer of these animals, they will be able to live more natural lives."

Conclusion

With nearly the entirety of my case dropped, and the entirety of con's case proven to be a collection of strawmen and poorly evaluated claims, the trajectory of the debate is clear at this moment.

https://www.statista.com/chart/24899/meat-consumption-by-country/

01.15.2023 04:36PM

Con

These 'dropped' points are quite interesting to think are dropped.

Let's see my Round 1 counter-angles again:

Needless Suffering flipped

Now, not only are the worked in the direct meat trade all going to be out of work and struggling, let's actually see how many rely on it.

All chefs that specialise in meat and fish meals.

The restaurants, cafes etc that are known for such meals.

The entirety of the majority that convert to suit Pro's will, which will prefer meat and fish and suffer needlessly.

This 'needless' suffering has me wondering, what is a 'need' to suffer? Pro is basing a huge amount of their case upon the premise that needless suffering is 'wrong'. So, what is the need basis of suffering that is right?

What need is there to stop all meat and fish trade?

If anything, all Pro did was explain why we should perhaps be pescatarian and focus less on factory farmed meat, nothing in Pro's case explains the NEED for everyone to suffer through unpleasant vegetarian diets.

On average, 86 percent of people surveyed for the Statista Global Consumer Survey in 39 countries said that their diet contained meat – highlighting that despite the trend around meat substitutes and plant-based products, eating meat remains the norm almost everywhere in the world.

It is safe to say that absolutely nobody eating meat would not suffer from giving it up. So what is the need for them to?

Why is it okay for all animals that aren't human to eat what they naturally eat but humans need to be the only animal suffering through an artificially herbivorous diet to appear the likes of Pro? The entire basis of 'needless' suffering ignores the fact that humans do suffer when giving up their natural diet and all those involved in the trade will needlessly suffer.

What is the land and all the resources going to go to?

The mass-slaughter point is pretty irrefutable. That's simply what most sensible farmers are going to do. Their cows and hens maybe are still useful for milk and eggs but if enough turn vegan, not just vegetarian, then even that will be rendered useless.

In fact, this is also a problem with the resolution since the 'vegan or' aspect is extremely vague. This means all arguments I could make to the cake industry, milk and cheese industry, pastry industry etc. Basically a massive amount of tasty treats we enjoy would become much worse or ridiculously expensive. The problem is every shred of character space and energy I'd spend exploring that, Pro can just reply 'hey, they can just be vegetarian instead'.

Regardless, I would like to know how on Earth Pro thinks I didn't address the environment point.

In Round 1, I say this:

Alright, we 'saved the environment' but how? Do you see anywhere in Pro's entire thesis about how we ensure that the land space, resources and expertise for better?

Let me just make it clearer...

The entire land space being used is still going to be used. Do you think that the land space, water and all of it is just going to be used less or used 'better' according to Pro? What guarantee is there of that?

All Pro has encouraged is us destroying the entire meat and fish industry in exchange for what exactly? There is no elaboration given at all.

I then extended to point out that all complications and especially scientific resources going towards the long-term global replacement of meat and fish products is really a waste of science. No only severely and indirectly but absolutely directly, since the very same tech that makes fake steaks is just a few science-steps away from instead having been well-spent effort and resources on making fake organs for transplants.

We are currently not wasting too many resources and personnel on such endeavours, thanks to the fact the majority of the world is not vegan and vegetarian. If the demans was high enough, so much would be wasted on that to maintain it and this is the only way for Pro to suggest people won't suffer needlessly while giving up their naturally delicious and wanted meat and fish.

I will, for the sheer sake of avoiding unfair votes against me, 'address' what Pro is saying I haven't now.

a. Environmental reasons
Dropped. Extend.

I reiterate that not one iota of proof or guarantee is there that the land will be used in a better way for the environment, this is a moot point since all farmland and resources could be used worse.

Pandemic Considerations
Dropped. Extend.

This is an extremely peculiar point. Rather than encourage us to crack and develop better anti-new-virus combat teams, Pro would have us stay on low-defense and instead slaughter all farm animals and force... Wait..

WAIT

What is a MAJORITY?

IF ONLY 50.01% OF THE WORLD IS the 'majority' VEGETARIAN THERE'D STILL BE MEAT TRADE which lets there be a pandemic at any time really. I don't comprehend exactly what Pro means here. Are we to seriously consider freak cases of viruses in animals to be the reason to turn the 'majority' vegan/vegetarian? What exactly does Pro want me to retort?

b. Health
Dropped. Extend.

I said this in Round 1:

Plant-based meat substitutes taste and chew remarkably similar to real beef, and the 13 items listed on their nutrition labels -- vitamins, fats and protein -- make them seem essentially equivalent.

But a Duke University research team's deeper examination of the nutritional content of plant-based meat alternatives, using a sophisticated tool of the science known as 'metabolomics,' shows they're as different as plants and animals.

Meat-substitute manufacturers have gone to great lengths to make the plant-based product as meaty as possible, including adding leghemoglobin, an iron-carrying molecule from soy, and red beet, berries and carrot extracts to simulate bloodiness. The texture of near-meat is thickened by adding indigestible fibers like methyl cellulose. And to bring the plant-based meat alternatives up to the protein levels of meat, they use isolated plant proteins from soy, peas, and other plant sources. Some meat-substitutes also add vitamin B12 and zinc to further replicate meat's nutrition.

However, many other components of nutrition do not appear on the labels, and that's where the products differ widely from meat, according to the study, which appears this week in Scientific Reports.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/07/210706153026.htm

However, since Pro ignores that I will add this more explicit one:

MEAT AND FISH, SOURCES OF PROTEIN
Meat and fish are different food groups, but they have something in common. Both are sources of protein, a nutrient important for our muscular health. The proteins found in meat and fish are of high biological value, meaning that they contain all the essential amino acids required to support our body functions in the right proportion. Besides proteins, these groups supply varying amounts of other important nutrients such as vitamins and minerals.

MEAT: NUTRITIONAL PROFILE AND SERVINGS
Meat is a source of group B vitamins and several minerals such as iron or magnesium. Group B vitamins provide energy for our body and brain. Meat’s iron is “high availability iron”, meaning that it has a higher rate of absorption and usage than plant-based sources of iron for normal body functions. Eating 3 weekly servings of meat, choosing lean cuts, is recommended by the Spanish Society of Community Nutrition (SENC). According to the same guidelines, the consumption of red and processed meat should be moderated, once or less a week. However,

FISH: NUTRITIONAL PROFILE AND SERVINGS
Fish is a source of vitamin D and minerals such as phosphorus and iodine. Fat)ty fish is rich in polyunsaturated fatty acids Omega3 which reduce the “bad” cholesterol (LDL) – by cutting down triglyceride levels and preceding substances which play a major preventive role in cardiovascular diseases. Vitamin D is important for correct calcium fixation in bones, and phosphorus helps to maintain healthy teeth. Fish consumption is particularly important for pregnant and breastfeeding people and during periods of growth such as childhood. Eating 3 to 4 weekly servings of fish is recommended by the Spanish Society of Community Nutrition. Shellfish are high-quality protein sources too, low in sodium, calories, and saturated fats. Shellfish also contain polyunsaturated fatty acids Omega3, and are excellent sources of vitamins (B1, B12) and minerals such as phosphorus, potassium, iron, iodine, fluorine, and zinc.

https://www.foodunfolded.com/article/meat-fish-and-their-nutritional-properties

In other words, there are health benefits outweighing and/or equally weighing agaisnt the drawbacks of excessive meat and fish in the diet. It's a moot point.

b.1 Mortality and Global Level Population
Dropped. Extend.

What?!! The world is currently overpopulated how is this even the issue to base the majority of the world turning vegetarian/vegan on?

Yes, for two main reasons. First, people are rapidly displacing wildlife species across the globe, initiating a mass extinction event. Second, we are degrading ecosystems that provide essential, irreplaceable environmental services that future generations will need to live decent lives. Both these trends are driven, in large part, by immense and unprecedented numbers of human beings. Because there are too many of us to share the Earth fairly with other species and with future human generations, Earth is overpopulated.
Deforestation in Madagascar. Habitat destruction is threatening many of Madagascar’s endemic species, and has already driven some of them to extinction.

overpopulation-project.com

If meat and fish somehow are argued to lower our lifespan, that actually could be a net-good.

Round 3

01.16.2023 04:10PM

Pro

Overview

Finally enough, at least there are now some responses to my case. In this round, I will go through my contentions first, my past rebuttals, and new rebuttals. I will note that con drops nearly every rebuttal I made last round and sadly continues to repeat himself.
In this round, as another note, when pro lies about my case because my speeches have a clear structure, I point to the sections specifically.

a. Environmental Reasons

...not one iota of proof or guarantee is there that the land will be used in a better way for the environment

Pro's claims that there is not "one iota of proof" can be easily discounted by the multiple peer-reviewed studies and articles that report on them I cited expressly in my round-one arguments. I have already shown that "[d]iet change is the single biggest way to reduce your impact on the environment. Not just emissions, but other environmental indicators: biodiversity, water use, habitat loss, deforestation, nitrogen and phosphorus pollution," according to both the United Nations and research from Oxford University, both points being dropped by con. This is also disproven by the study I cited showing that [t]ransitioning toward more plant-based diets that are in line with standard dietary guidelines could reduce global mortality by 6–10% and food-related greenhouse gas emissions by 29–70% compared with a reference scenario in 2050." So despite con covering his eyes and ears, there is very strong evidence for this point, all of which has been cited throughout the debate.

Pandemic Considerations

Rather than encourage us to crack and develop better anti-new-virus combat teams, Pro would have us stay on low-defense...

This claim was not made. Ignore it as a strawman. We should both be developing anti-virus medication as well as reducing harmful practices that develop resistant viruses. There is no reason it has to be one or the other.

Are we to seriously consider freak cases of viruses in animals to be the reason to turn the 'majority' vegan/vegetarian? What exactly does Pro want me to retort?

If you engage with the evidence I presented, these are not freak cases. In addition to the previous study, "A 2004 joint consultation of the World Health Organisation (WHO), Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) and World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE, the world’s leading veterinary authority), concluded that “anthropogenic factors such as agricultural expansion and intensification to meet the increasing demand for animal protein” are one of the major drivers of zoonotic disease emergence." Further "animals on factory farms are routinely fed vast amounts of antibiotics in order to keep them alive in conditions that would otherwise kill them. Because of this, even the most powerful antibiotics aren’t effective against certain bacteria, contributing to the emergence of “superbugs” – new, aggressive, antibiotic-resistant pathogens," and "the growing demand for animal protein resulted in a tripling of the occurrence of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing bacteria in livestock between 2000 and 2018." So yes, one of the reasons people should go vegan is because of this horrible phenomenon of pathogen resistance documented extensively in the scientific community. The article titled says it perfectly: "Factory farming conditions and antibiotic-resistant pathogens emerging as a result of them pose an existential threat to humans in the form of zoonotic diseases. Why it’s time to produce and consume food more thoughtfully."

IF ONLY 50.01% OF THE WORLD IS the 'majority' VEGETARIAN THERE'D STILL BE MEAT TRADE which lets there be a pandemic at any time really.

Con's confusion is peculiar here. No one claimed the meat trade would end. All I am arguing is that it would reduce the risk of a pandemic and the development of resistant bacteria and viruses. Just because a problem still exists does not mean it can't be attacked and reduced, just like we may not have a cure for cancer, but we can treat cancer to a greater degree. As I have shown this is a situation imperative to address.

b. Health

Once again, as stated in round two, meat substitutes are not relevant to my case for vegan and vegetarian diets. All my argument is, is that removing meat consumption from your diet is overwhelmingly more healthy than not, with various studies cited to that effect. Pro also lies that this was "ignored," as the response is clearly included under Rebuttals > I. Transition Evaluation. Another clear misrepresentation of my case.

"MEAT AND FISH, SOU..."

Pro just cites a source that shows meat and fish have protein. I am not sure how this is relevant. No one argued that meat is deficient of any sort of nutritional value or that meat has no protein, just that people can be overwhelmingly more healthy by not eating meat and pursuing a plant-based diet. I cited multiple studies for this claim including the points of the research, and con has engaged with none of them.

In other words, there are health benefits outweighing and/or equally weighing agaisnt the drawbacks of excessive meat and fish in the diet. It's a moot point

Con's error here shows clear confusion. Just because X has a benefit and Y has a benefit, does mean that X and Y are of equal benefit, or equal in any capacity. For example, eating a chocolate cake for dinner may have some minor niche benefits and eating a salad meal will also have benefits, but it does not follow that the foods are equally as healthy. And it is clear from the evidence I have shown, that veganism and/or vegetarian diets come with the overall best health outcomes and that the more meat is taken out of your diet, the healthier you will be. Extend my sources.

b.1 Mortality and Global Level Population

Con misunderstands my point here. My contention has nothing to do with overpopulation as an issue, it simply shows that because vegan and vegetarian diets make people live longer and improve their quality of life, they are thus healthier diets. "b.1" is a subset of "b" which was "health."

What?!! The world is currently overpopulated how is this even the issue to base the majority of the world turning vegetarian/vegan on?...If meat and fish somehow are argued to lower our lifespan, that actually could be a net-good...

As noted, the issue of overpopulation is not what I am arguing concerning. But regardless, this is perhaps con's weakest point in the debate. Globally, poorer countries are developing and gaining a better quality of life. This is the basics of the Demographic Transition Model. Just because the population increases, does not mean people should live worse lives and be unhealthy. Because we progress with technology as we become more efficient, we develop new ways to manage our resources.
Secondly, transitioning to veganism and vegetarianism is one of the best ways to manage overpopulation because all the land used for animal agriculture can be occupied by humans and be more sustainably and efficiently used to manage the issue. In fact, the study "Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits" found that "[s]witching to a plant-based diet, halving food waste, and improving existing farming practices can feed the projected world population of 10 billion by 2050," so con's argument can just be turned on him.
Con also cites species displacement as an issue. Unfortunately for him, studies show that "a truly staggering 60 percent loss of global biodiversity can be blamed squarely on our meat-based diets." So if this is con's concern, veganism and vegetarianism are the solution, and this argument is self-refuting once again.

Rebuttals

I. Transition Evaluation

"Job Losses"

Dropped. Extend.

"Meat and Fish Alternatives..."

Dropped. Extend.

II. Other

"mass slaughter of animals..."

Once again, there is no entitlement that animals have to be slaughtered as mentioned in round one, especially because animals will these animals that will gradually be bred less and less into existence with a vanquishing demand to a point where they can be conservated. But, even if this were to happen, it would be far better than the continued future of breeding billions of animals into existence to experience torturous lives, so even if this happened, it would not invalidate any reason for the majority of people to go vegan as it would save many animals and many future animals from extreme suffering (95 is the average number of animals spared each year by one person's vegan diet).

Why should all meat eaters that enjoy meat suffer unnecessarily?

Not eating meat is not suffering, just like not eating candy or chocolate cake is not suffering, because you can just replace them with other foods. Secondly, I am not forcing anyone to go vegan or vegetarian, I am arguing that people should go vegan or vegetarian because it is better for their health, the environment, and the reduction in animal suffering.

"chefs that specialise in meat and fish meals..."

Just like Chefs that specialize in foods people don't generally eat anymore, they can adapt their cooking skills.

"restaurants, cafes etc that are known for such meals..."

Extend rebuttal Round 2 > I. Transition Evaluation > "Job Losses" from which con has offered no response.

The entirety of the majority that convert to suit Pro's will, which will prefer meat and fish and suffer needlessly.

Once again, eating different meals that are better for your health, cheaper, better for the environment, just as good quality if not better quality is not suffering, and better as a whole is not suffering.

Conclusion

I have shown that in nearly every way veganism is the best course of action for humanity. Even con's counters have been turned against him into arguments for my side. With con hardly engaging with my evidence, he decision is clear.

01.17.2023 03:07PM

Con

The definition of 'suffering' is something that Pro has left us completely without in this debate, for that reason I am forced to offer it in the last Round as I know voters allow last-Round new points to hold ground and need to rebuke something.

rather than define it with the 'ing', I will define 'suffer':

suffer

a
: to submit to or be forced to endure
suffer martyrdom
b
: to feel keenly : labor under
suffer thirst
2
: UNDERGO, EXPERIENCE
3
: to put up with especially as inevitable or unavoidable

merriam-webster

The reason this is extremely important and justifiable for me to raise in the last Round is that so much of Pro's hand-waving away at my crucial points stems from a misunderstanding of how simple and universally appliable the concept of 'suffering' is across the board.

It is indeed suffering to remove all meat and fish, whether nutritionally, tastefully, financially (if one's income is based on it) and in an irrefutable sense in terms of the options one has to eat and cook or even buy and sell.

The reason is that to suffer does not inherently mean whatever Pro may decide is agonising enough to qualify. This means that the entire contention of Pro, that we are endling needless suffering by majority turning vegetarian and vegan starts to totally turn on its head as we are pushing forward on it.

Pro furthermore fails to see that my point is even having standalone worth in that there will be complication and harms that come with everyone converting, including the mass-slaughter of animals overnight since they aren't profitable to keep around anymore for a lot of farmers and slaughterhouses.

The beauty of my rebuttal, which I do hope voters see, is that I am not denying that animals suffer in factory farming. I am in fact saying our aims could well include, wait let me quote it:

All we have to do is refine the techniques and where we fish, farm and how we use the land and treat the creatures and we'd be able to put all science to actually useful work.

Alright, we 'saved the environment' but how? Do you see anywhere in Pro's entire thesis about how we ensure that the land space, resources and expertise for better?

In fact, what I would argue is this:

Every shred of scientific work being put into meat and fish alternatives is a waste of science, relatively speaking.

We could be curing cancer, AIDS heck we could be focusing instead of making tasty meat and fish alternatives on making alternative body organs for transplant and Pro's outline doesn't specify how many scientists are burning energy day in day out, using their time, recources and potential and throwing it into a fancy alternative meat and fish product.

I say all this in Round 1, expanding on it in Round 2. Pro's retort seems to make no sense to me.

First of all, a vegetarian and vegan, as I explore in more depth in Round 2, are two different types of absolutist with vegans having more severe drawbacks or 'benefits', which would only be apparent if Pro would have focused on them and if they exist.

I note that both are absolutists which is something Pro has missed this entire debate. I could have trolled Pro by saying everyone should eat 1 piece of meat and fish a week and only a minority be fully vegetarian let alone vegan, which actually would cut down more meat and fish consumption than Pro's plan since Pro's plan allows 49.999% to be consuming animal products, well I guess meat since the 'or' does favour Pro if we apply it truly correctly but that's my point.

If 49.999% ate a lot of meat and fish, it kind of is sillier than everyone cutting down a substantial but not absolute amount.

Pro's continual wavering around quantifying things has only one exception; environmental costs of farming and the meat and fish trade. The problem with this is that Pro never explains how in the plan they have in mind, people use the resources in a more environmentally-friendly way. Note that I even juxtapose this against the fact that the entire science study and trade looking into meat and fish alternatives and artificial this and that to make us enjoy without needing to harm animals or use as much land space for farming etc, is in my opinion quite a waste of resources in early 2023 era we are in since so much else can be done, such as making artificial human organs to transplant with the same type but not same studies within science that lead to artificial meat.

So much of Pro's case lacked any guarantees in place that anything would be better under their utopian regime, only criticisms of how things currently are.

I agree with Pro we should look to farm in a less factory/battery farm intensive way but that's about where the agreement stops entirely. Pro would have us overnight turn vegetarian and vegan, that's the only time-frame fair and applicable to the resolution and so many complications come with that which Pro has quite literally overlooked and metaphorically brushed off as dust or swept under a rug I keep pulling up.

01.24.2023 09:16PM

#45

-->

@RationalMadman

Well, since you were talking about how there would be a mass slaughtering of all meat in every meat farm, the least you could have done, before stating it like a fact ant not a hypothetical, was found a single CEO of a meat company, or an expert on the meat industry, or even, at minimum, a news article, that mentions it. Considering the seriousness of the claim.

Hypotheticals are discussed all the time. Experts, news articles, and UN Meetings regularly discuss hypotheticals. Wouldn't have been that difficult to find... Unless you're the only person who thinks it would happen.

And, FWIW, if you have fewer reliable sources than someone else, you did not have "more reliable sources." And certainly did not have better reliable sources. How could that possibly be? If you cite 3 experts and the other person cites 2, it doesn't matter if one expert is better than another. They are all experts. Unless there is an obvious disparity (like one expert got the Nobel Prize and the other 2 from your opponent are graduates of Full Sail University), the person with more reliable sources has better sources by definition.

01.24.2023 07:18PM

#44

-->

@RationalMadman

The importance of the arguments were weighed, from most important to not too important.

01.24.2023 05:29PM

#43

-->

@Public-Choice

This has never happened so how could I back up a very likely hypothetical?

01.24.2023 05:28PM

#42

-->

@Public-Choice

More sources shouldnt win that vote lol

PREZ-HILTON

01.24.2023 05:22PM

#41

-->

@Public-Choice

Good vote. Thank you for taking time out of your day to do the debaters the favor of evaluating their arguments

01.24.2023 02:10PM

#40

-->

@RationalMadman

If you'd have had more source material to back up your side, it would have been a tie. But you didn't. A simple counting exercise reveals this.

I wasn't "sloppy." I was unimpressed by both parties for half of the debate, the only clear determiner here was more reliable sources, which went to PRO.

All you had to do was back up the mass slaughtering and some of your views earlier than you did, and you might have won it out. But PRO literally didn't get sources for half of your major arguments until at least round 3. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. That holds true even if you're RationalMadman.

01.24.2023 01:53PM

#39

-->

@whiteflame

no it doesn't, but I understand how sloppy a vote I myself can get away with now.

whiteflame

01.24.2023 01:53PM

#38

-->

@RationalMadman

@Novice_II

@Public-Choice

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Public-Choice // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 2 points to Pro (Sources)
>Reason for Decision: see voting tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter sufficiently covers the issue of sources. While he does leave out discussion of sources presented by Con in R1, the RFD clearly details what the voter sees as the biggest deficits in Con's sources, which stands even with those sources taken into consideration.
**************************************************

01.24.2023 01:52PM

#37

neither voter remotely understood the debate, weaver just counted arguments instead of weighing how crucial they were.

whiteflame

01.24.2023 01:49PM

#36

-->

@RationalMadman

@Novice_II

@WeaverofFate

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: WeaverofFate // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Pro (Arguments, S&G), 3 points to Con (Sources, Conduct)
>Reason for Decision: see voting tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter goes into great depth on how he views the arguments and sources presented in the debate, which is sufficient to award these points. The voter is allowed to use the tally system he's employed here to award those points. S&G and Conduct are done via the same method, and while that does mean that they do not meet the voting standards since each of these require meeting certain thresholds and not a certain number of mistakes/instances of misconduct, these two points nonetheless balance out so, given how close this voting period is to ending, the vote will stand as is.
**************************************************

01.24.2023 12:07PM

#35

-->

@Barney

@Vader

@whiteflame

Please moderate the votes I reported 3 days ago

01.21.2023 08:26AM

#34

-->

@Barney

@whiteflame

I literally had benefits of meat and fish in round 1 and 2, public choice is lying in his vote.

01.21.2023 04:53AM

#33

-->

@Wylted

Thanks prez!

PREZ-HILTON

01.21.2023 04:51AM

#32

I watched enough of the video to know that a ton of effort was put into the vote. I haven't analyzed the debate so I won't speculate as to who won but it was a good video

01.21.2023 04:10AM

#31

-->

@Sir.Lancelot

That's unfortunate, but you're right

Sir.Lancelot

01.21.2023 03:58AM

#30

-->

@WeaverofFate

You’re wasting your time.

Novice_ll will never acknowledge any mistakes he made. His default instinct is to report votes that go against him or label critics ‘confused.’

01.21.2023 03:40AM

#29

-->

@Novice_II

I literally have a video of me reading the whole debate out loud, looking at your source, reading the source, and then saying how I found it wrong, attached to the vote itself. You're just wrong and got called out for a bad framing of information. I didn't expect it to be this big of a deal considering you won by my vote.

I'll make it very simple for you

One of your sources says that not eating meat leads to more strokes due to the deficiencies of micronutrients that cannot be corrected by that person.

The other source claims that people who follow a veg/vegan diet reduces the risk for multiple conditions (including strokes).

Both simultaneously cannot be true. Unless you would mention something along the lines of "one group was on supplements and the other was not", it invalidates the frame you're presenting.

If you would have framed the source correctly by stating other factors effecting the study to attempt to explain the contradiction, I wouldn't have awarded the points to Con. But, you didn't. Look at your sources next time or actually write a better citation. Jesus.

01.21.2023 03:27AM

#28

-->

@WeaverofFate

Hmm, a lot of confusion is going on here on your part.

I am or really convinced you know what a contradiction is in logic, are tracking what I am saying, have read the sources in question, or are tracking the claims I have made in the debate. Not really looking to explain this to you anymore, but I would encourage you not to make false claims.

01.21.2023 03:14AM

#27

-->

@Novice_II

The claim follows this logic

Eating meat causes these diseases---> these diseases harm us ----> vegan/vegetarianism has us abstain from meat ---> therefore, vegan/vegetarianism reduces the chance of this disease. (The disease being strokes in this case)

You used the other source to promote this logic:

Eating meat causes a build up of cholesterol that leads to coronary artery disease ----> vegetarianism/veganism reduces the rate of coronary artery disease but increases the rate of strokes ----> more detrimental effects were seen due to eating meat overall due to these conditions ---> therefore, the increased risk for stroke is the healthier option for vegetarianism/veganism compared to eating meat and coronary artery disease.

It's a contradiction which invalidates one of your sources, since if we assume that the way you frame the sources is true, they have conflicting claims. It points out a common deficiency CAUSED by not consuming meat regularly (B12). If we really want to get anal about it, you also misrepresent the source as it clearly lists other factors in addition to meat for the study, such as weight and calories, which would further invalidate the framing. It was a mistake to include the two sources together in the same argument.

01.21.2023 03:01AM

#26

-->

@WeaverofFate

From what you just posted, I am not seeing what exactly the contradiction is. It seems like one of my sources is talking about how eating meat makes the risk of these diseases go up, and the other is saying that a given resource deficiency can as well. Eating meat actually causes these diseases, whereas on some modes of veganism, the lack of something brings about a less bad result.

01.21.2023 12:27AM

#25

-->

@Novice_II

Forgot to ping you

01.21.2023 12:27AM

#24

Apart from vastly being imperative towards the health and wellness of individuals, the reduction in severe medical emergencies likely comes with prospective savings in the medical field. Mayo Clinic also confirms what we would expect of the converse research shows that "people who eat red meat are at a higher risk of death from heart disease, stroke or diabetes. Processed meats also make the risk of death from these diseases go up."

^ Allusion that veg/vegan diets would bring down strokes

This is extensive to the point that one of the key measures we can take to reduce large-scale impositions of global suffering from pandemics and animal-borne diseases is reducing our demand for and consumption of meat products. There are several imperative health benefits to veganism or vegetarianism. Some studies reported upon by BBC for example found that people who eat vegan and vegetarian diets "have a lower risk of heart disease, but a higher risk of stroke, possibly partly due to a lack of B12" and further that "those who didn't eat meat had 10 fewer cases of heart disease and three more strokes per 1,000 people compared with the meat-eaters."

^ Contradictory implication

01.20.2023 09:54PM

#23

-->

@WeaverofFate

"One source claimed that strokes were reduced while another claimed that strokes increased due to a veg/vegan diet."

Can you show quotes in question indexed to each source? All due respect, this is not really telling me anything other than repeating the claim.

01.20.2023 09:24PM

#22

-->

@AustinL0926

Haha well I am just cool like that

01.20.2023 09:24PM

#21

-->

@Novice_II

One source claimed that strokes were reduced while another claimed that strokes increased due to a veg/vegan diet. It could be argued that the source that claimed veganism limited strokes didn't isolate the variable (as they stated other factors like calories and weight). However, it was not represented as such in your argument, which made me need to award sources to Con as he did use his sources more effectively and did provide high quality sources like yours as well.

01.20.2023 09:11PM

#20

-->

@WeaverofFate

Thanks for voting, but can you specifically show what the contradiction in sources was? I didn't really follow what you were talking about there.

AustinL0926

01.20.2023 08:26PM

#19

-->

@WeaverofFate

In all my time on this website, this is the first time I've ever seen a vote with points split like that.

01.20.2023 08:13PM

#18

-->

@RationalMadman

@Novice_II

I submitted my vote.

01.20.2023 06:18PM

#17

My gut feeling was to give Novice the argument vote, but I didn't feel it was clear enough to support outright. Though I could have made a case for it. My opinions on the debate arguments are still there though. Overall I did think Novice did a better job than RM on arguments, but both of you didn't really fully convince me on anything except for sources. That was the ultimate defining line for me.

01.20.2023 07:14AM

#16

Will vote on this tomorrow

AustinL0926

01.19.2023 02:13AM

#15

-->

@Public-Choice

Thank you; I look forward to the vote.

01.19.2023 01:44AM

#14

I will try to get to this one.

I also owe AustinL and Lancelot a vote on their prison debate.

PREZ-HILTON

01.18.2023 03:35AM

#13

-->

@Kbub530

Do you mind voting on this debate, seeing as how you are a fan of this topic?

01.17.2023 03:08PM

#12

-->

@Barney

@whiteflame

@K_Michael

@Public-Choice

@AustinL0926

high rated clash, please do vote.

01.12.2023 04:51PM

#11

-->

@TheUnderdog

You are a president of Canada. You poop gold.

TheUnderdog

01.12.2023 04:44PM

#10

-->

@Best.Korea

“ You should care though, it means I have something you will only get by paying someone.”

You got roasted. I could get a girlfriend, but I’m not interested.

01.12.2023 02:21PM

You are the president of USA. You have great skills. Autistic retard.

01.12.2023 05:42AM

You may want to but that is rape and sexual harassment to act upon.

01.12.2023 04:40AM

You are great. We should all suck your autistic dick.

01.11.2023 08:47PM

You should care though, it means I have something you will only get by paying someone.

01.11.2023 08:45PM

I dont care about your excuses, or the fact that Novice is your girlfriend.

01.11.2023 08:42PM

Yeah I copied it. That is why I am the contender and not the instigator of this debate, it is because I made it.

01.11.2023 07:27PM

Invented? No.
But I happen to invent one 1 hour ago and you copied it almost word for word.

I am not angry. I understand. I wont report you. You should copy from me more. I will send you a list of things to copy from me.

01.11.2023 07:20PM

Yeah...You invented vegetarianism debates. Sorry for the plagiarism.

01.11.2023 07:19PM

Why the fuck would you copy my debate? Well, will be fun watching you two fight over this ridicolous topic.

01.20.2023 08:12PM

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:

RFD:

https://youtu.be/EJSQdzQs_5U

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Z3ULnepmiXyL5LwAxHv4oyAehZ-Vd64VueNmbVsG6oA/edit?usp=sharing