Vegetarians. - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Vegetarians.
in Philosophy

Tell me why we humans are either a) not meant to eat meat or b) why killing animals is not ok.
Sovereignty for Kekistan



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

  • a) Humans have evolved as omnivorous species. We can survive by eating mostly meat, and we can survive by not eating any meat at all. We are highly adaptable and can survive in a large variety of environments by large variety of means.
    It is absolutely possible to get appropriate nutrition without eating meat - but in that case some other source of proteins is needed. Mushrooms are a popular choice among vegetarians, as far as I know, and while mushrooms tend to be quite a bit more expensive than meat, they indeed are an appropriate alternative.

    b) This is a purely moral question. My personal approach is "I am okay with others killing animals to then sell the meat to me, but I will not kill animals myself". I could elaborate further on what system of beliefs leads to such a view, but in general it is a purely utilitarian approach, mixed with respect for animal rights: if the animal is already dead (no matter how it died), then its meat should be put to good use; if the animal is alive, however, then I will not take action towards taking that animal's life.

    The animal world is based on the principles of competition and selfish struggle: animals kill each other for food all the time, and the matter of "animal rights" does not cross their mind. The animal only has as many rights as it can manage to exercise in the face of dangerous predators in that environment. Whether you believe that humans belong to that environment, or that we should be "better" than that, will define your outlook on whether it is okay to kill animals, under what circumstances and so on.
    AmericanFurryBoyZombieguy1987Applesauce
  • God desires mercy, not sacrifice, in Hosea 6:6.
    cheesycheeseNamesZombieguy1987
  • Climate change is a well accepted scientific reality.

    To stop widespread global catastrophe from happening we need to cut greenhouse gas emissions and increase the amount of trees which act as carbon sinks.

    Now "Avoiding meat and dairy is ‘single biggest way’ to reduce your impact on Earth" according to research that has been done. Raising animals requires extensive use of lands and in terms of calories created is far more inefficient than growing crops - massively disproportionate amount of energy, land and time are used to raise say a cow until it's old enough to be slaughtered - with the cow farting out methane every single day its alive.

    If you want to make a contribution towards stopping the massive death and destruction runaway climate change will cause, not to mention stopping the potential collapse of human civilisation that could result from that, then go vegetarian or even vegan.
    Zombieguy1987Applesauce
  • Tell me why we humans are either a) not meant to eat meat or b) why killing animals is not ok.

    Vegans are hypocrites.

    They will complain that killing animals for meat is inhumane because they are living and have thoughts and feelings, yet plants are ALSO living and feel pain when being turned into food

    Names
    https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    Blues and Raptors handed two very toxic teams embarrassing losses, 95% of the sports world is rejoicing in the news

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • NamesNames 20 Pts
    @AmericanFurryBoy
    "Tell me why we humans are either a) not meant to eat meat or b) why killing animals is not ok."

    To address the former point:

    What do you mean by the phrase, "meant to eat meat?" Humans have evolved to be able to eat meat, because an omnivorous diet simply offers the widest range of foods and is therefore the most optimal in almost any given habitat, but we are by no means required to eat meat. The ability to do something is not the obligation to do something. Yes, humans can eat meat. No, they do not have to. They aren't defying their biology by refusing to do so. One of the biggest luxuries of civilization is the privilege of (more or less) deciding your own diet. You can eat (once again, more or less) whatever you please, and however much. We aren't compelled by the scarcity or lack of variety of available food like uncivilized animals are.

    In regards to the latter:

    Your moral compass is the largest determiner (and perhaps the sole determiner) in the acceptability of the killing of animals, especially when the purpose is for the production of unnecessary (and as I explained in the prior paragraph, the consumption of meat, and, by extension, killing of animals for such, is utterly nonessential) food. If you truly believe that animals are worthy of respect like any person (which is to say, deserving of the right to life, independence, and happiness), then there is no rational way to reach the conclusion that meat-eating, pet-owning, or any other practice that infringes on those core three principles is permissible. If your pet dog or cat is worthy of your love, and you wouldn't be okay with someone causing harm to him or her, then why don't you feel the same towards a cow or chicken on a farm? The other line of thought is, naturally, that animals are undeserving of such respect, with the common rationale being that they do not reciprocate such respect unto you. No animal, no matter how integrated into society, is capable of comprehending and submitting to the social contract, or, more simplistically, the straightforward concept of "I won't cause any harm to you or your well-being with the assumption and unspoken agreement that you will also refrain from doing so," and because of this, we should not grant them any inherent right to welfare.

    In conclusion, meat-eating in humans is by no means a compulsion. You can live a very healthy life without any form of meat in your diet. Whether the slaughter of animals in order to make food is or is not morally acceptable is, needless to say, dependent upon one's moral foundation. One who regards animals as deserving of civil liberties and sees a dog or cat on the same level as themselves simply cannot make a sensible or logical argument in favor of meat-eating (as far as my knowledge goes). One who views those less intelligent than themselves as creatures not inherently earning of their respect would naturally take no issue with consuming said creatures. If you beg to differ on any points I've made, or desire further clarification on any of my assertions, do not hesitate to do so. Have a nice day.
    “There are always risks in challenging excessive police power, but the risks of not challenging it are more dangerous, even fatal.” 

    ― Hunter S. Thompson
  • NamesNames 20 Pts
    @Zombieguy1987

    Can I have a source of a reputable study that decisively proves that plants feel emotion, especially discomfort or unhappiness? I've failed to find such studies, or any that back your argument. The best I could find was the following at science.howstuffworks.com: 

    "For some researchers, evidence of these complex communication systems -- emitting noises via gas when in distress -- signals that plants feel pain. Others argue that there cannot be pain without a brain to register the feeling. Still more scientists surmise that plants can exhibit intelligent behavior without possessing a brain or conscious awareness."

    In regards to answering the question of "do plants feel pain," this article basically says a long-winded version of, "I don't know, maybe."
    Zombieguy1987
    “There are always risks in challenging excessive police power, but the risks of not challenging it are more dangerous, even fatal.” 

    ― Hunter S. Thompson
  • Names said:
    @Zombieguy1987
    Can I have a source of a reputable study that decisively proves that plants feel emotion, especially discomfort or unhappiness? I've failed to find such studies, or any that back your argument. The best I could find was the following at science.howstuffworks.com: 

    "
    For some researchers, evidence of these complex communication systems -- emitting noises via gas when in distress -- signals that plants feel pain. Others argue that there cannot be pain without a brain to register the feeling. Still more scientists surmise that plants can exhibit intelligent behavior without possessing a brain or conscious awareness."

    In regards to answering the question of "do plants feel pain," this article basically says a long-winded version of, "I don't know, maybe."

    Plants, unlike animals, cannot communicate the fact their living. They cannot scream when they're being killed, or show any sort of emotion, but simply because they cannot do that doesn't mean they're not living creatures. And if plants weren't living. Then why do scientists call them organisms?

    Oh, and these:  http://www.mbgnet.net/bioplants/main.html

    http://www.answers.com/Q/Is_a_plant_living_or_non-living_thing

    Names
    https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    Blues and Raptors handed two very toxic teams embarrassing losses, 95% of the sports world is rejoicing in the news

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • Inuits eat nothing be meat and seem to be as healthy as people as any, if not more.  Consider any peoples leaving in similar climates where farming is all but impossible or access to plant foods.  There are plenty of athletes and body builders who are vegetarian and vegan as well.  That doesn't mean everyone can do it or should.  This new carnivore died certainly isn't for everyone, imo no extreme diet is good, but it works for some but not for others.  With all our similarities as human we are still vastly different.
    Conservation and management is what's best for animals.  Large areas of land are owned and not developed but kept for hunting.  There's limits and controls on hunting to maintain game levels, same is true with fishing.  If you don't understand what I'm talking about and the concept please look it up.  Sportsmen/hunters are into land and water management big time generally, because without it you can't hunt/fish.  Domesticated animals is a different issue, but without a demand for them, they wouldn't exist and would cease to exist, don't know if that's bad or not, but seems pretty logical.
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • NamesNames 20 Pts
    @Zombieguy1987

    You appear to have misread or intentionally misconstrued what I was saying. At no point did I say (implicitly or explicitly) that plants were nonliving beings. Perhaps you read your own comment of "[vegans] will complain that killing animals for meat is inhumane because they are living" and assumed I was responding to that? I was not. No vegan has said that killing animals is wrong because they are alive. If that were the case, every vegan would then oppose antibiotics and vaccines. That's insanity. The point I was addressing was the one that was actually a realistic thing to say, which is the retort that plants have emotions and feelings. The consciousness of animals is the point that vegans go after. "If animals have emotions, why can't we sympathize with them," the argument goes. No one has ever argued "animals are living things, therefore we shouldn't eat them." I didn't even realize you made the former point, presumably because it was so ignorant and preposterous that it failed to register with me. I was questioning your assertion that plants possess the ability to feel emotion, hence why I said, "Can I have a source of a reputable study that decisively proves that plants feel emotion, especially discomfort or unhappiness?" You have failed to defend that point.
    Zombieguy1987
    “There are always risks in challenging excessive police power, but the risks of not challenging it are more dangerous, even fatal.” 

    ― Hunter S. Thompson
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch