Instigator
Points: 3

organic milk is better for you than non-organic milk

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 1 vote the winner is ...
RationalMadman
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Health
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Points: 7
Description
No information
Round 1
Published:
Since milk is an organic substance which comes from the breasts of mammals, all milk is organic. Therefor non-organic milk cannot possibly be better for you, because it doesn't even exist.
Published:
Path 1 - Something is actually just as worse as nothing as it is better.
Let's operate in a world where there's only organic milk by default and theoretically concede that to Pro in this bubble of logic. Inside this bubble, we find that all the harms milk can and would cause, such as cholesterol issues, too much calcium leading to kidney stones and a variety of other issues (Pro didn't source, so why should Con for this Round?) end up being incapable of being reached by the non-existent non-organic milk. Something vs nothing means the something does more harm. Even if the something is arguably also doing more beneficial it then leads us to path 2 that Con can and must take:

Path 2 - Whether or not non-organic milk is real, 'better for you' can only ever apply when it is followed later by a 'with regards to X' or 'for purpose X'.

There is no context in this debate provided by Pro for what exactly 'better' is referring to. If I am taller than you, I am better at things that height gives and worse at things that being short give. The exact 'benefits' are also drawbacks when no end goal is in sight to relate things to. 

Better at what?????? Everything? Nothing? Better at nothing defeats itself because 'better at' becomes negated.


Whichever path Pro does down, Pro has lost. You can't be 'better than nothing at an unnamed thing' non-organic milk doesn't exist, so it has zero harms. Checkmate?
Round 2
Published:
Let's operate in a world where there's only organic milk by default and theoretically concede that to Pro in this bubble of logic. Inside this bubble, we find that all the harms milk can and would cause, such as cholesterol issues, too much calcium leading to kidney stones and a variety of other issues
This is about which is better not which is worse. Besides, if you drink milk in the proper moderation and drink good quality milk all those problems can be avoided whereas non existent milk can provide no nutrients or happiness for your tastebuds. You can't even mix chocolate with it or put it in your cinnamon  squares.

There is no context in this debate provided by Pro for what exactly 'better' is referring to. If I am taller than you, I am better at things that height gives and worse at things that being short give. The exact 'benefits' are also drawbacks when no end goal is in sight to relate things to. 
Better means health benefits and deliciousness. Nothingness has no health benefits or deliciousness.


Published:
Drawbacks of milk include lactose, cholesterol and actually the calcium and 'good stuff' all have drawbacks too potentially. Non-organic milk, a future product that will be synthesised without any animal organs required, would have none of these drawbacks. 

In fact lactose-free milk isn't organic and neither is powdered milk. One can also take note that milk that is skimmed or semi-skimmed isn't natural either. The reason is that these all involve denaturing and/or permanently altering what was there in the organic milk.

(of food or farming methods) produced or involving production without the use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, or other artificial chemicals.

It is clear that Pro made a resolution to bait people that relies solely on the following definitions of organic:

1 Relating to or derived from living matter.

1.1Chemistry Relating to or denoting compounds containing carbon (other than simple binary compounds and salts) and chiefly or ultimately of biological origin.
Compare with inorganic

The problem is that even combining these, it becomes clear that the milk that is treated to reduce the lactose, fat and even add a flavouring to it, is all inorganic in its ultimate form as we must respect all definitions of organic since none was agreed upon by both debaters.

Lactose Intolerance
Lactose is a sugar found only in milk, but it is also present in dairy products and food items made with milk derivatives.

A lactose intolerance is different from a milk allergy. In a milk allergy, the body reacts to milk proteins, not milk sugar. Milk allergy can result in severe symptoms, including anaphylaxis.

A person with a severe lactose intolerance may have to avoid not only milk and milk products, such as ice cream, but other processed foods containing milk powder, whey, and so on.

Lactose intolerance is thought to affect between 30 million and 50 million Americans to some degree.

Symptoms
[abdominal pain]
Drinking milk can cause discomfort in people with a lactase deficiency.
A person with lactose intolerance will experience symptoms after consuming milk or some dairy product that contains lactose.

Symptoms can range from mild discomfort to a severe reaction, depending on how much lactase the person produces, and how much dairy produce they consume.

They include:

  • flatulence
  • bloating
  • abdominal pains
  • nausea
  • diarrhea
The person may have a sudden urge to use the bathroom 1 to 2 hours after consuming lactose. In severe cases, dehydration may occur.

The argument against this will be sheep and goat's milk. This is where the following need to be considered:
How Skim Milk Is Made
The quicker, modernized way of making low-fat and skim milks is to place the whole milk into a machine called a centrifugal separator, which spins some or all of the fat globules out of the milk. This occurs before the milk is homogenized, a process which reduces all the milk particles to the same size so that natural separation doesn’t occur anymore.

Skim Milk Additives
Federal law mandates that most skim milk has to be fortified with vitamin A and sometimes vitamin D. This is due to the fact that even though whole milk naturally has a fair amount of both, the vitamins are fat soluble and thus lost when the milk fat is removed during the skimming process.

Milk solids in the form of dried milk are also added since they contain proteins that help thicken the watery consistency of skim milk.

Interestingly, it's only healthy when non-organically reinforced with vitamin A and D.

I have also explored the impossibility of 'better than'.

You cannot say anything is better than anything else without a context to be better than that thing at.

If non-organic milk really doesn't exist (which is a lie, it does) then it has zero drawbacks. Benefits don't outweigh drawbacks without a scaling system to prove it to be true.
Round 3
Published:
If you're going to argue that any inorganic compound in milk makes it not organic than I will argue that any organic compound makes it organic, but it is always mostly an organic substance because it comes from mammals teats by definition.
Published:
Pro has failed to objectively prove the resolution true by anything other than subjective 'better benefits' being subjectively weighed as better and worth than the objective drawbacks they come at the price of.
No comments yet
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro sets up a semantic trap debate. Defining all milk as organic. Pro sticks with this throughout.
Con kinda flails here. He starts off with the actually strong argument that there is no such thing as non organic milk - so by default milk can’t be better than it. This should have been the hammer that con beats pros point over the head with.
Instead, con tries to counter with multiple other approaches, “better is arbitrary” - which imo was poorly executed, and is probably better suited to truly arbitrary comparison or scenarios where you can clearly argue multiple beneficial definitions of better. This felt clearly insufficient.
The second is to argue that milk fortification somehow makes it inorganic, the definitional approach could be very strong. Con does this by clearly arguing that this was a trap debate - and as the definitions used were not agreed his is as good as pros.
When I look at the resolution, cons definition seem more relevant and pertinent to the resolution, and as such I have to side with cons definition. Con then spells out how the milk we drink is not organic, but is generally better. This is a reasonable argument - and an argument pro simply dismisses out of hand.
On this alone - I feel con clearly negates the resolution.
However in addition, cons argument that organic milk cant be better than nonexistent milk is very valid. Pros only counter argument is that organic milk is better than nothing - but in my view the resolution is that organic milk is better than non organic milk, not that it is better than nothing.
As a result, I would have awarded con arguments for this too.
As a result of these clear negations: arguments to con.
Conduct: pro sets up a clear attempt at bait and switch, trying to dupe someone into a cheap semantic win using a definition that clear stands outside any reasonable interpretation of the resolution.
Bait and switch semantic debates like this are antithetical to debate - as they aren’t discussion on the merits, and to the debate site a while - where people want to discuss point of views, not engage in shitty definitional battles.
Cons behaviour here is clearly to set up an unfair debate, which in my opinion is a clear violation of good form and conduct that is substantial enough to merit a conduct violation. Pro was as well mannered as one could hope throughout despite this.
As a result of this, conduct goes to con too.