Should vegetarianism be compulsory? - 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!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Should vegetarianism be compulsory?

Debate Information

In the world of debating, this motion comes across reasonably often. However, it is a fun and enjoyable one. I shall start by proposing that vegetarianism should be compulsory.

First of all, vegetarianism should be compulsory because eating animals isn't fair! Is it truly right to allow these beautiful, amazing animals to die just to fill our stomach? I think not. The pain that these animals are inflicted on by us humans is morally wrong. Every day, we kill 200 million animals, and every year over 72 billion. Including wild-caught and farmed fishes, the total comes up to 3 billion every day. That is half the human population killed each day. 
Secondly, the land destroyed and wrecked to give the animals we kill space is extraordinary. Every 3 seconds, farmers and deforestation workers destroy an area of land the size of a football pitch. In our current crisis, with climate change and all, the effect of us slaughtering animals and destroying habitats is utterly outrageous.
Finally, the idea of a food chain, and us being top of it, is a made-up fantasy that we use to try to make us feel better about wrecking animals and the Earth's life.
  1. Live Poll

    Should vegetarianism be compulsory?

    9 votes
    1. Yes, it should.
      22.22%
    2. No, it shouldn't.
      77.78%
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4676 Pts   -  
    "Just to fill our stomach" is a pretty serious reason though. There is no evidence to suggest that going full vegetarian worldwide will not cause a lot of us to starve due to lack of proper nutrition. Now, you could say that we should gradually start transitioning towards vegetarianism, so one day the market can sustain such a lifestyle for everyone - which I would disagree with as well - but as it stands, just introducing the law tomorrow that vegetarianism is compulsory would be a huge blunder.

    I agree that we should strive for the future in which we can have sufficient nutrition without killing any animals, but right now it does not seem feasible, and purely vegetarian diet has issues with it, that are resolvable, but require a lot of extra money investment (for example, replacing chicken with mushrooms would cause your grocery bills to skyrocket).
    [Deleted User]
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5327 Pts   -  
    If we didn't kill animals to eat them, then why should we keep them around at all?

    They take up space that could be used for other purposes, and if they are in our way then there is little that can be done to stop us.

    The Holocene extinction, which is in part caused by humans, will see to it that most of the surviving species are the ones that either adapt to a lifestyle that works around humans, or that are directly beneficial to humans in some way. Being food is a strong motivator for that, although I believe it will come to a close when synthetic meat is produced in ways that are cheap and acceptable for the average consumer.

    At this point all those "beautiful, amazing animals" that have to die just to fill our stomachs will not get any chance at life, because they will never be conscious, rather they will just be cells grown in a tube. This will eventually be cheaper because it will require less energy and time to grow synthetic meat specifically because the animal will never have to do any of the things that normally consume energy on it's behalf.
    Plaffelvohfen[Deleted User][Deleted User]JGXdebatePROadesola_a
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • onethinhandle56onethinhandle56 19 Pts   -   edited March 2020
      
  • TGMasterXTGMasterX 148 Pts   -  
    @Happy_Killbot You must be joking, there are so many reasons to keep animals.

    When we conserve and protect the natural habitat of wildlife species, we enrich our planet. To do so, we must keep the animals in their natural place. Conservation of natural habitats will also be beneficial for humans since it helps keep the essential watersheds intact and ensuring clean, freshwater. In case you haven't realised, humans are a species of animal too. Why should we keep humans around, when they take up so many natural resources that in 50 years, our planet will be a burning, smoky, shell.
    [Deleted User][Deleted User][Deleted User][Deleted User][Deleted User]xlJ_dolphin_473[Deleted User][Deleted User]adesola_a
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5327 Pts   -  
    @TGMasterX Planets are overrated, and for the record, no we should not keep humans around, at least not the biological kind we are used to.

    What do you think will happen to the land that was already cleared for raising animals? Do you think it will magically go back to nature?

    No, it will be re-used to plant crops and possibly developed as places for homes and businesses. Once land is set for human use, it is most likely going to stay that way. Increased food supply means we can support a higher population, which in turn means more land must be cleared for human use. At some point, there will be little or none leftover for animal habitats, and especially not the domesticated animals that don't exist in nature anyway.

    The modern, dairy cow, pig, chicken, dog, and sheep are not to be found in nature, because they are products of human breeding, most of these animals can not survive very well in the wild, having been so far separated from their wild ancestors that it is unlikely they will go back. They are stuck in a cycle of codependency with humans. We take care of and protect them, and in turn we gain control over their bodies, including control of their reproduction and of course eating them. Without us, they can not survive.

    I don't know why you think that animals have anything to do with keeping watersheds clean, since one of the major reasons we treat our water is to remove biological contaminants. (i.e. feces)  Animals have the opposite effect on the quality of our drinking water.

    As for planets being overrated and biological humans sticking around, if you think about it, planets are the least efficient use of resources. If we dismantled the planet and reconstituted everything into space habitats, we would be able to have hundreds of thousands of times more living space, which would ultimately mean more room for people, and perhaps animals too.

    At the moment, our planet has a maximum carrying capacity of around 10-11 billion people. This number will rise with the advent of new food production and housing technologies, such as GMO's, desert irrigation, compact housing units, and vertical farming. However, there is always going to be an upper limit to the amount of biomass the planet can hold, and having more people means less biomass available for other organisms. However there is a potential solution for this that goes far beyond the meat consumption question. In the future, we may be able to emulate human minds, basically running a brain on a computer, which would allow for a much higher population since these people will only need the input energy to run the simulation for survival, thus meaning they can live independently of biological means. There will come a time when the vast majority of all humans will be like this, perhaps in 150-200 years, at which point earth's population might exceed 1 trillion people. This is all beyond the scope of this discussion, but it kind of puts things into perspective of how it doesn't matter much if the planet turns into a burning smoking shell, because in the future most people won't need it to be any different to survive.
    Plaffelvohfen[Deleted User][Deleted User]TGMasterXxlJ_dolphin_473[Deleted User][Deleted User]
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1702 Pts   -  
    I believe that vegetarianism should not be compulsory, and not without reason. I will split my arguments into three parts. In Part One, I will discuss the reasons that animals provide good nutrition, and that they form a delicate ecosystem that would certainly suffer if vegetarianism was made compulsory. But first, I will offer my rebuttal.

    My only point of rebuttal for now is directed towards @Happy_Killbot. As @TGMasterX mentioned, there are many reasons to keep animals. Firstly, animals serve as useful test subjects for scientific tests and the like. Secondly, plant based meat is expensive and does not provide the same nutritional value. Thirdly, there are 20 billion chickens in the world, the vast majority of which are farmed. Why make vegetarianism compulsory when we have 20 billion chickens to eat?  :joy:

    Now onto my own personal arguments. Animals provide excellent nutrition, and humans have been eating them for millions of years. Farmed animals even provide food for other wild animals: vultures feed on dead animal carcasses. There is plenty of scepticism over the nutritional value of plant based meat substitutes. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that all people should eat meat, I'm just saying that people should have the choice, as I will address in Part Three of my arguments.

    Here is my second and final argument. Animals form a delicate and useful ecosystem. To make vegetarianism compulsory would be to make this ecosystem unstable, which may cause problems later down the line. There are huge numbers of parasites, bacteria and archaea who live in harmony with farmed animals, and we could see high extinction rates if farm animals are phased out. 

    This concludes my argument. After a suitable interval of time during which people may rebut my arguments, I will move on to Part Two. I expect to see @JGXdebatePRO on this forum a lot, so please feel free to rebut the Part One arguments up until the time I post Part Two.
    TGMasterXJGXdebatePRO
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5327 Pts   -   edited March 2020
    @xlJ_dolphin_473 When I talk about synthetic meat, I am not just talking about the plant based variety.
    https://www.gfi.org/mapping-the-clean-meat-industry?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI47TD9buV6AIVDRQMCh1PuwazEAAYASAAEgI_VPD_BwE

    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • TGMasterXTGMasterX 148 Pts   -   edited March 2020
    @Happy_Killbot If you believe that we should not keep humans around, why are you here? And yes, I think that the land consumed by animals will grow back to nature. I would have expected you to know how our planet works.
    I do not think you understand the argument at hand; I never stated that we would need to release the animals into the wild, they can be looked after and used for the other goods they produce. Fish, annelids, rotifers and many protozoa are essential to purify water and keep it clean.
    Dismantling the planet would be near impossible at this stage, as we are not currently aware of a world with the needs that humans need to survive. 

    Now I think about it, what's the point of dismantling planets and carrying on living, because 'we should not keep humans around.'

    @xlJ_dolphin_473 The only reason there are 20 billion chickens in the wild, is because we are FORCING animals to overbreeding. Overbreeding is unfair, unnatural, and is even worse for your health, eating low-quality meat. I will get to this later.
    I am reasonably sure, as you have stated, farm animals are in good shape for a couple of decades until the billions remaining run out.

    @xlJ_dolphin_473 You have stated that that the animals we eat, provide necessary nutrition. If you are wealthy, this may be true; however, the high percentage of meat that the majority of people can afford is low quality and can cause long term diseases, some of which can kill you. I am relatively sure that vegetables are much healthier in the long run and more beneficial.
    xlJ_dolphin_473[Deleted User][Deleted User][Deleted User][Deleted User][Deleted User]
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1702 Pts   -  
    @xlJ_dolphin_473 When I talk about synthetic meat, I am not just talking about the plant based variety.
    https://www.gfi.org/mapping-the-clean-meat-industry?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI47TD9buV6AIVDRQMCh1PuwazEAAYASAAEgI_VPD_BwE

    What variety are you talking about, then?
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5327 Pts   -  
    @TGMasterX I'm still here because mind uploading technology hasn't been developed yet.

    Why should we look after livestock if there is no benefit to doing so? All of these animals would be culled if vegetarianism were compulsory because the individuals who own the animals would not want to lose money to keep them alive.

    Micro-organisms that purify water can be added artificially, we do not need a natural system to maintain them. Similarly, the algae blooms that fish consume could be sucked up and turned into bio fuel.

    I'm not saying this is something that will happen tomorrow, or maybe ever, I'm just pointing out that planets are not that good of a use of living space. Ideally, we would not live on planets at all.

    Your last sentence doesn't make any sense, it is a non-sequitur. Planets existing has nothing to do with keeping humans around, theoretically we could live completely without planets in space habitats.
    Plaffelvohfen[Deleted User]
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • TGMasterXTGMasterX 148 Pts   -  
    @TGMasterX I'm still here because mind uploading technology hasn't been developed yet.

    Why should we look after livestock if there is no benefit to doing so? All of these animals would be culled if vegetarianism were compulsory because the individuals who own the animals would not want to lose money to keep them alive.

    Micro-organisms that purify water can be added artificially, we do not need a natural system to maintain them. Similarly, the algae blooms that fish consume could be sucked up and turned into bio fuel.

    I'm not saying this is something that will happen tomorrow, or maybe ever, I'm just pointing out that planets are not that good of a use of living space. Ideally, we would not live on planets at all.

    Your last sentence doesn't make any sense, it is a non-sequitur. Planets existing has nothing to do with keeping humans around, theoretically we could live completely without planets in space habitats.
    Planets existing is essential to human life. As an example, liquid is necessary for a human being alive. To create water, you need hydrogen and oxygen. In space, hydrogen is present. However, there is no oxygen except around planets. To gain access to that oxygen, we would have to live on the world. I do not think you understood my argument; We will still use the animals for the many goods they produce! They won't become unnecessary, do you not understand?
    [Deleted User][Deleted User][Deleted User]xlJ_dolphin_473[Deleted User][Deleted User]
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1702 Pts   -  
    TGMasterX said:
    @Happy_Killbot If you believe that we should not keep humans around, why are you here? And yes, I think that the land consumed by animals will grow back to nature. I would have expected you to know how our planet works.
    I do not think you understand the argument at hand; I never stated that we would need to release the animals into the wild, they can be looked after and used for the other goods they produce. Fish, annelids, rotifers and many protozoa are essential to purify water and keep it clean.
    Dismantling the planet would be near impossible at this stage, as we are not currently aware of a world with the needs that humans need to survive. 

    Now I think about it, what's the point of dismantling planets and carrying on living, because 'we should not keep humans around.'

    @xlJ_dolphin_473 The only reason there are 20 billion chickens in the wild, is because we are FORCING animals to overbreeding. Overbreeding is unfair, unnatural, and is even worse for your health, eating low-quality meat. I will get to this later.
    I am reasonably sure, as you have stated, farm animals are in good shape for a couple of decades until the billions remaining run out.

    @xlJ_dolphin_473 You have stated that that the animals we eat, provide necessary nutrition. If you are wealthy, this may be true; however, the high percentage of meat that the majority of people can afford is low quality and can cause long term diseases, some of which can kill you. I am relatively sure that vegetables are much healthier in the long run and more beneficial.
    You make some good points, but I must rebut them. We are not eating bad quality meat: there are standards in place to ensure that the meat we eat is of a high standard. Also, vegans have to take vitamin supplements to replace the vitamins that they cannot obtain from meat.
  • TGMasterXTGMasterX 148 Pts   -  
    TGMasterX said:
    @Happy_Killbot If you believe that we should not keep humans around, why are you here? And yes, I think that the land consumed by animals will grow back to nature. I would have expected you to know how our planet works.
    I do not think you understand the argument at hand; I never stated that we would need to release the animals into the wild, they can be looked after and used for the other goods they produce. Fish, annelids, rotifers and many protozoa are essential to purify water and keep it clean.
    Dismantling the planet would be near impossible at this stage, as we are not currently aware of a world with the needs that humans need to survive. 

    Now I think about it, what's the point of dismantling planets and carrying on living, because 'we should not keep humans around.'

    @xlJ_dolphin_473 The only reason there are 20 billion chickens in the wild, is because we are FORCING animals to overbreeding. Overbreeding is unfair, unnatural, and is even worse for your health, eating low-quality meat. I will get to this later.
    I am reasonably sure, as you have stated, farm animals are in good shape for a couple of decades until the billions remaining run out.

    @xlJ_dolphin_473 You have stated that that the animals we eat, provide necessary nutrition. If you are wealthy, this may be true; however, the high percentage of meat that the majority of people can afford is low quality and can cause long term diseases, some of which can kill you. I am relatively sure that vegetables are much healthier in the long run and more beneficial.
    You make some good points, but I must rebut them. We are not eating bad quality meat: there are standards in place to ensure that the meat we eat is of a high standard. Also, vegans have to take vitamin supplements to replace the vitamins that they cannot obtain from meat.
    You, my friend, are VERY incorrect. Many types of meat eaten in some countries, like China, do not go through 'meat checks.' The notorious coronavirus, also known as COVID-19, started from an illegal meat trade. Now, from that one animal, over 5000 deaths have occurred.
    I have a good friend, also know as @JGXdebatePRO, who is a vegetarian. He does not take vitamins and is perfectly healthy and in good shape.
    JGXdebatePRO[Deleted User][Deleted User][Deleted User]xlJ_dolphin_473[Deleted User][Deleted User]
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5327 Pts   -  
    @TGMasterX
    TGMasterX said:
    @TGMasterX I'm still here because mind uploading technology hasn't been developed yet.

    Why should we look after livestock if there is no benefit to doing so? All of these animals would be culled if vegetarianism were compulsory because the individuals who own the animals would not want to lose money to keep them alive.

    Micro-organisms that purify water can be added artificially, we do not need a natural system to maintain them. Similarly, the algae blooms that fish consume could be sucked up and turned into bio fuel.

    I'm not saying this is something that will happen tomorrow, or maybe ever, I'm just pointing out that planets are not that good of a use of living space. Ideally, we would not live on planets at all.

    Your last sentence doesn't make any sense, it is a non-sequitur. Planets existing has nothing to do with keeping humans around, theoretically we could live completely without planets in space habitats.
    Planets existing is essential to human life. As an example, liquid is necessary for a human being alive. To create water, you need hydrogen and oxygen. In space, hydrogen is present. However, there is no oxygen except around planets. To gain access to that oxygen, we would have to live on the world. I do not think you understood my argument; We will still use the animals for the many goods they produce! They won't become unnecessary, do you not understand?

    The International Space station says stop it.

    If there is nothing to gain from animals, they will go away. If you want to say that we sill still use them for other products besides meat that is fine, but your base claim is that it isn't fair to eat them, so is it fair to exploit them for other products?

    I see little difference between using a cow for milk and using it for meat, except that one will have to suffer for years, where the other will only be alive for a short time. Some may argue that exploiting animals for other products is just as evil as for meat, but personally I don't think so.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • JGXdebatePROJGXdebatePRO 393 Pts   -  
    @TGMasterX you make some excellent points as there is a lot of misinformation going around about us vegetarians. Being a vegetarian is just a choice to save animals and the environment and is not forced upon you and you don't have to take odd supplements either. It is a choice, no more, no less.
    xlJ_dolphin_473TGMasterX
    Viva la revolución

  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1702 Pts   -  
    TGMasterX said:
    TGMasterX said:
    @Happy_Killbot If you believe that we should not keep humans around, why are you here? And yes, I think that the land consumed by animals will grow back to nature. I would have expected you to know how our planet works.
    I do not think you understand the argument at hand; I never stated that we would need to release the animals into the wild, they can be looked after and used for the other goods they produce. Fish, annelids, rotifers and many protozoa are essential to purify water and keep it clean.
    Dismantling the planet would be near impossible at this stage, as we are not currently aware of a world with the needs that humans need to survive. 

    Now I think about it, what's the point of dismantling planets and carrying on living, because 'we should not keep humans around.'

    @xlJ_dolphin_473 The only reason there are 20 billion chickens in the wild, is because we are FORCING animals to overbreeding. Overbreeding is unfair, unnatural, and is even worse for your health, eating low-quality meat. I will get to this later.
    I am reasonably sure, as you have stated, farm animals are in good shape for a couple of decades until the billions remaining run out.

    @xlJ_dolphin_473 You have stated that that the animals we eat, provide necessary nutrition. If you are wealthy, this may be true; however, the high percentage of meat that the majority of people can afford is low quality and can cause long term diseases, some of which can kill you. I am relatively sure that vegetables are much healthier in the long run and more beneficial.
    You make some good points, but I must rebut them. We are not eating bad quality meat: there are standards in place to ensure that the meat we eat is of a high standard. Also, vegans have to take vitamin supplements to replace the vitamins that they cannot obtain from meat.
    You, my friend, are VERY incorrect. Many types of meat eaten in some countries, like China, do not go through 'meat checks.' The notorious coronavirus, also known as COVID-19, started from an illegal meat trade. Now, from that one animal, over 5000 deaths have occurred.
    I have a good friend, also know as @JGXdebatePRO, who is a vegetarian. He does not take vitamins and is perfectly healthy and in good shape.
    I was just talking about vegans there, not vegetarians. Did you even read my post?
    And about the meat standards, there is a thing called the 'Global Red Meat Standard', and it does include things such as meat checks. It is thought that coronavirus comes from bats or pangolins, not commonly eaten in other countries, as I'm sure you can agree. And yes it is an illegal meat trade. In the UK, illegal meat is hard to come by, as the standards are so high here. 
    JGXdebatePRO
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1702 Pts   -  
    @JGXdebatePRO
    You have given me a fallacy. Please explain?
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1702 Pts   -  
    @TGMasterX you make some excellent points as there is a lot of misinformation going around about us vegetarians. Being a vegetarian is just a choice to save animals and the environment and is not forced upon you and you don't have to take odd supplements either. It is a choice, no more, no less.
    I respect your choice to be a vegetarian. It was vegans I said who have to take supplements, not vegetarians. 
    @TGMasterX
    Why is eating animals unfair? There is this thing called 'the food chain' which applies to all animals, including us humans. There really is no reason why eating animals is unfair, it is a fact of life, no more.
  • JGXdebatePROJGXdebatePRO 393 Pts   -  
    @xIJ_dolphin_473 What you have just said is a fallacy. And, just wondering, if you eat illegal meat, is a cop just going to teleport by you're side and arrest you? No, I believe not. The point me and my friend are making is the lack of enforcement on meat standards is appalling. Did you know that McDonalds was using an illegal substance in their beef burgers so the company was taken to court and fined 30 million.
    xlJ_dolphin_473TGMasterX
    Viva la revolución

  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1702 Pts   -  
    @xIJ_dolphin_473 What you have just said is a fallacy. And, just wondering, if you eat illegal meat, is a cop just going to teleport by you're side and arrest you? No, I believe not. The point me and my friend are making is the lack of enforcement on meat standards is appalling. Did you know that McDonalds was using an illegal substance in their beef burgers so the company was taken to court and fined 30 million.
    No, it's selling meat that does not conform to the GRMS that is illegal. The meat standards are good in most developed countries, and they are rapidly improving. What you have said is a fallacy from generalisation. You are using just one example to represent the whole case, which is a logical fallacy and misrepresentation.
  • JGXdebatePROJGXdebatePRO 393 Pts   -  
    @xIJ_dolphin_473 What you have just said is a fallacy. And, just wondering, if you eat illegal meat, is a cop just going to teleport by you're side and arrest you? No, I believe not. The point me and my friend are making is the lack of enforcement on meat standards is appalling. Did you know that McDonalds was using an illegal substance in their beef burgers so the company was taken to court and fined 30 million.
    No, it's selling meat that does not conform to the GRMS that is illegal. The meat standards are good in most developed countries, and they are rapidly improving. What you have said is a fallacy from generalisation. You are using just one example to represent the whole case, which is a logical fallacy and misrepresentation.
    This is invalid as this still does not justify the lack of enforcement for meat.
    xlJ_dolphin_473TGMasterX
    Viva la revolución

  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1702 Pts   -   edited March 2020
    @xIJ_dolphin_473 What you have just said is a fallacy. And, just wondering, if you eat illegal meat, is a cop just going to teleport by you're side and arrest you? No, I believe not. The point me and my friend are making is the lack of enforcement on meat standards is appalling. Did you know that McDonalds was using an illegal substance in their beef burgers so the company was taken to court and fined 30 million.
    No, it's selling meat that does not conform to the GRMS that is illegal. The meat standards are good in most developed countries, and they are rapidly improving. What you have said is a fallacy from generalisation. You are using just one example to represent the whole case, which is a logical fallacy and misrepresentation.
    This is invalid as this still does not justify the lack of enforcement for meat.
    What lack of enforcement is that? I literally just stated that the meat enforcement is quite good in most developed countries.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] 17 Pts   -   edited March 2020
    hi
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1702 Pts   -  
    wwwwww said:
    hi
    Why post 'hi'? This is a debate.
  • TGMasterXTGMasterX 148 Pts   -  
    @xIJ_dolphin_473 What you have just said is a fallacy. And, just wondering, if you eat illegal meat, is a cop just going to teleport by you're side and arrest you? No, I believe not. The point me and my friend are making is the lack of enforcement on meat standards is appalling. Did you know that McDonalds was using an illegal substance in their beef burgers so the company was taken to court and fined 30 million.
    No, it's selling meat that does not conform to the GRMS that is illegal. The meat standards are good in most developed countries, and they are rapidly improving. What you have said is a fallacy from generalisation. You are using just one example to represent the whole case, which is a logical fallacy and misrepresentation.
    This is invalid as this still does not justify the lack of enforcement for meat.
    What lack of enforcement is that? I literally just stated that the meat enforcement is quite good in most developed countries.
    The food chain is a made-up fantasy created by humans. We designed it to make humans feel good about mercilessly slaughtering animals.
    I am sorry about misunderstanding your argument. However, next time UNDERSTAND THE MOTION! The debate is about vegetarians, not vegans!
    xlJ_dolphin_473[Deleted User][Deleted User][Deleted User]JGXdebatePRO
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1702 Pts   -  
    TGMasterX said:
    @xIJ_dolphin_473 What you have just said is a fallacy. And, just wondering, if you eat illegal meat, is a cop just going to teleport by you're side and arrest you? No, I believe not. The point me and my friend are making is the lack of enforcement on meat standards is appalling. Did you know that McDonalds was using an illegal substance in their beef burgers so the company was taken to court and fined 30 million.
    No, it's selling meat that does not conform to the GRMS that is illegal. The meat standards are good in most developed countries, and they are rapidly improving. What you have said is a fallacy from generalisation. You are using just one example to represent the whole case, which is a logical fallacy and misrepresentation.
    This is invalid as this still does not justify the lack of enforcement for meat.
    What lack of enforcement is that? I literally just stated that the meat enforcement is quite good in most developed countries.
    The food chain is a made-up fantasy created by humans. We designed it to make humans feel good about mercilessly slaughtering animals.
    I am sorry about misunderstanding your argument. However, next time UNDERSTAND THE MOTION! The debate is about vegetarians, not vegans!
    As I have already duly said, the food chain is not a construct. It is a scientific theorem, one that has been proved correct. Never mind about the veganism, that was a little sidetrack.
  • TGMasterXTGMasterX 148 Pts   -  
    @xlJ_dolphin_473 Who proved the food chain theory? Us, humans. The people who are trying to comfort themselves! 
    xlJ_dolphin_473[Deleted User][Deleted User]JGXdebatePRO
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1702 Pts   -  
    TGMasterX said:
    @xlJ_dolphin_473 Who proved the food chain theory? Us, humans. The people who are trying to comfort themselves! 
    The food chain applies to all animals. I’m afraid I do not know who in their right mind would fail to understand that animal eats animal, which eats smaller animal, which eventually eats plant. 
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1702 Pts   -   edited March 2020
    @TGMasterX
    The food chain was proven long before this idea that meat eating is inhumane. Your argument is fallacious.
  • TGMasterXTGMasterX 148 Pts   -  
    @TGMasterX
    The food chain was proven long before this idea that meat eating is inhumane. Your argument is fallacious.
    Okay, if an animal eats an animal, why have humans decided that it is not okay no eat each other? Surely eating each other is just part of the 'food chain' as you have stated?
    [Deleted User][Deleted User]xlJ_dolphin_473JGXdebatePRO
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1702 Pts   -   edited March 2020
    TGMasterX said:
    @TGMasterX
    The food chain was proven long before this idea that meat eating is inhumane. Your argument is fallacious.
    Okay, if an animal eats an animal, why have humans decided that it is not okay no eat each other? Surely eating each other is just part of the 'food chain' as you have stated?
    Obviously not of the same species, but did you know that sharks sometimes eat their brothers and sisters in times of need?
    There also exist cannibal tribes in some parts of the world.
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1702 Pts   -  
    @TGMasterX
    Goodbye for today. Have fun responding to my meaty rebuttals. I will go and eat some primarily meat-based dinner now. Until tomorrow!
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5327 Pts   -  
    @TGMasterX ;

    TGMasterX said:
    @TGMasterX
    The food chain was proven long before this idea that meat eating is inhumane. Your argument is fallacious.
    Okay, if an animal eats an animal, why have humans decided that it is not okay no eat each other? Surely eating each other is just part of the 'food chain' as you have stated?
    The answer has to do with gene selection. There are very few species that intentionally hunt their own, because genes are selfish and prefer to enhance the propagation of their own species.

    For social animals such as humans, a key characteristic of social survival is keeping your own species alive, so traits such as empathy evolved to make us more likely to save our own kind.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • TGMasterXTGMasterX 148 Pts   -  
    @Happy_Killbot Gene selection is irrelevant. Some tribes still eat each other, as @xlJ_dolphin_473 has stated. Cannibalism is not genes, as humans still eat each other. However, thank you for answering my question.
    @xlJ_dolphin_473 You said 'not of the same species,' but went on to describe some animals, including humans, who eat each other. You described two opposite points at the same time. You rebutted yourself.
    Happy_KillbotxlJ_dolphin_473JGXdebatePRO
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1702 Pts   -  
    TGMasterX said:
    @Happy_Killbot Gene selection is irrelevant. Some tribes still eat each other, as @xlJ_dolphin_473 has stated. Cannibalism is not genes, as humans still eat each other. However, thank you for answering my question.
    @xlJ_dolphin_473 You said 'not of the same species,' but went on to describe some animals, including humans, who eat each other. You described two opposite points at the same time. You rebutted yourself.
    Well you just backed me up, in your rebuttal to @Happy_Killbot.
    JGXdebatePRO
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2925 Pts   -  
    The only valid argument favoring veganism is the environmental one, that is: Our current means of meat production is ecologically unsustainable and costly...
    Change the breeding and processing methods and I don't see any problem with eating as much meat as you want...

    The "It's not fair to animals" is just an appeal to emotion and ultimately irrelevant to me with regards to meat consumption itself...
    If we're only talking about breeding methods and conditions, the less stress the animal lives with, the better the meat will be so from my point of view, it makes sense to have regulated breeding and conditions aiming to enhance the animal's quality of life... 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • TGMasterXTGMasterX 148 Pts   -  
    @Plaffelvohfen I was not talking about veganism, I was talking about vegetarianism.
    @xlJ_dolphin_473 I did not back you up, I used some of your information which was correct. Would you mind replying to my rebuttal, or my point-out to your argument?
    JGXdebatePRO
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2925 Pts   -  
    @TGMasterX

    Meh, slightly less radical that's all but both rely on the same arguments...
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5327 Pts   -  
    @TGMasterX

    TGMasterX said:
    @Happy_Killbot Gene selection is irrelevant. Some tribes still eat each other, as @xlJ_dolphin_473 has stated. Cannibalism is not genes, as humans still eat each other. However, thank you for answering my question.
    @xlJ_dolphin_473 You said 'not of the same species,' but went on to describe some animals, including humans, who eat each other. You described two opposite points at the same time. You rebutted yourself.
    I never said cannibalism was in our genes, that is a basic run of the mill straw man argument.

    What I said is that evolution favors genes that protect the same of their own species. If you look at my argument, you will find that it is not incompatible with cannibalistic tribes.
    Plaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • TGMasterXTGMasterX 148 Pts   -  
    @Happy_Killbot Oh, I am sorry. I didn't quite understand, I am very new to DebateIsland (it is my first day) and debating in general.
    JGXdebatePRO
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1702 Pts   -  
    TGMasterX said:
    @Plaffelvohfen I was not talking about veganism, I was talking about vegetarianism.
    @xlJ_dolphin_473 I did not back you up, I used some of your information which was correct. Would you mind replying to my rebuttal, or my point-out to your argument?

    Very well. I did not rebut myself, I rebutted you using the ‘even if’ rebuttal. I will explain how this rebuttal works now, so there can be no mistake.
    The ‘even if’ rebuttal works like this. The opponent’s evidence is flawed, but were it not to be flawed, the argument would still be invalid.
    Your basic premise, people have decided that it is wrong to eat each other, is wrong for the reason that there still exist cannibal tribes in some parts of the world. But, even if there were not, your argument would still be invalid because cannibalism is not part of the food chain. Thank you. @TGMasterX
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1702 Pts   -  
    @xIJ_dolphin_473 What you have just said is a fallacy. And, just wondering, if you eat illegal meat, is a cop just going to teleport by you're side and arrest you? No, I believe not. The point me and my friend are making is the lack of enforcement on meat standards is appalling. Did you know that McDonalds was using an illegal substance in their beef burgers so the company was taken to court and fined 30 million.
    Right, so it was enforced. Selling illegal meat that does not conform to the GRMC is illegal, and as the example you just gave neatly proves, you will get punished for it.
  • TGMasterXTGMasterX 148 Pts   -  
    @xlJ_dolphin_473 Thank you, I now understand the 'even if' rebuttal.
    However, you stated that cannibalism wasn't part of the essential food chain. In a previous point, you said that 'I'm afraid I do not know who in the right mind would fail to understand that animal eats an animal, which eats a smaller animal, which eventually eats the plant.' So why does cannibalism not apply in the food chain, where an animal is eating an animal? Do you admit that one of your points was incorrect?
    xlJ_dolphin_473JGXdebatePRO
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1702 Pts   -  
    TGMasterX said:
    @xlJ_dolphin_473 Thank you, I now understand the 'even if' rebuttal.
    However, you stated that cannibalism wasn't part of the essential food chain. In a previous point, you said that 'I'm afraid I do not know who in the right mind would fail to understand that animal eats an animal, which eats a smaller animal, which eventually eats the plant.' So why does cannibalism not apply in the food chain, where an animal is eating an animal? Do you admit that one of your points was incorrect?
    I do not admit that one of my points was incorrect, but I do admit that I may have made my point in a bit of an unclear way. Well, I am sorry if my argument is unclear, but I did not mean animals of the same species when I said 'animal eats animal'. Although, as I have said, animals sometimes eat animals of the same species, that is not because of the food chain. Animals tend to do this for reasons that arise from abnormal situations: for example, there is not enough food to eat and the animal's survival instinct kicks in, or in the case of human cannibalism, because there are traditions and practices relating to it. I hope that I have clarified my argument, as I will soon be moving onto Part Two of my case. @TGMasterX
  • TGMasterXTGMasterX 148 Pts   -  
    @xlJ_dolphin_473
    Ok, I understand now. 
    xlJ_dolphin_473JGXdebatePRO
  • NopeNope 397 Pts   -  
    TGMasterX
    Becoming vegetarians to stop killing animals for food would only stop humans directly killing animals. So my question is if you said "The pain that these animals are inflicted on by us humans is morally wrong." would that imply we would have to try and avoided current behaviors that predictably indirectly kill animals? Based on your comet on climate change I would think you would. Relying on only a planet based diet is easier to implement in developed countries who are in a much better position to adapt. For this reason I don't think it would be good for many developing countries to simply switch to veganism. Of course synthetic meat if developed further could be free from your criticism so if that where develop being a vegetarian would no long be necessary. I do think having a minimum negative impact on animals both directly and indirectly should be a goal however we can probably develop more clever strategies to achieve this goal then just making vegetarianism compulsory. I do think many developed countries should encourage there citizens to consume less meat. More research could be put into synthetic meat and technology that could decrease human impact on the environment. However if this is purely guided by social morals then this would need to be primary pushed by governments and citizens as the decisions made by many of the company's that cause this kind damage are mostly guided by government subsidies and regulations and consumer purchasing decisions.
    TGMasterX
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1702 Pts   -   edited March 2020
    Hello, and welcome to Part Two of my case. In this section, I will raise some of my strongest points against vegetarianism, but first I will rebut some of my opposition’s points.

    My first rebuttal goes to @TGMasterX. To be fair, he did concede that he now understands my argument, but I must chip away at some of his earlier points. He mentioned that the food chain is an artificial construct to make humans feel better about killing other animals. Two things: firstly there is absolutely no evidence of this, and secondly, why should we feel bad about killing other animals? It is just a part of the food chain and humans have been doing it for millennia. There is absolutely no reason why we should stop.

    My second rebuttal is for @JGXdebatePRO, who asked me to think of the “innocent, happy life” an animal would have been having before it was slaughtered. It is very unlikely that the animal was leading a life both innocent and happy, as the lives of many farmed animals are miserable. Take young bulls for example. They are kept in an enclosed cage for almost all of their short lives, and the only time they will get to stretch their muscles and be with other cattle is on the way to the abattoir. Thus @JGXdebatePRO’s point is invalid.

    Now, moving on to my argument. There are three main reasons why someone would want to become vegetarian: those being:

    • The environmental reason
    • The health reason
    • The ‘it’s not fair for the animals’ reason.

    I will now explain why all of these reasons are invalid reasons to become vegetarian, starting with the environmental reason.

    Becoming a vegetarian would only result in an emission  decrease of 0.8 tCO₂ per year. This pales in significance to the effect of not going on any flights, saving up to 5 tCO₂ per year (depending on how much you use planes). Or perhaps you could get an electric car, saving 2.4 tCO₂ a year (even more after the year you purchase it).

    Now, moving on, I will explain why the health reason is invalid as well. It is shown that although vegetarians may be healthier than meat eaters, it has been shown that even healthier is a diet in which you eat meat 1-2 times a week, and fish up to 4 times. Fish contains huge amounts of fatty acids and small amounts of iodine, which are essential for your health. So, a diet without meat may be healthy, but a diet with a small amount of meat is healthier still.

    Finally, I will explain the fallacy of the ‘it’s not fair for the animals’ reason. This is fallacious because the animals are raised only to be killed, and as they have been selectively bred and GM engineered, they would not be suited to a life out in the wild. Milk cows produce enormous amounts of milk, meaning they are heavy and cannot run away from predators.

    This concludes my argument. As before, I will leave a suitable time interval of a day or two until I post my final argument. 

    JGXdebatePRO
  • RS_masterRS_master 400 Pts   -  
    I believe you have to have a choice. Also, eating meat is part of the food chain and because we are near the top we have the freedom o eat meat. Lions eat antelope. That is part of the food chain so why can`t we eat meat?
    JGXdebatePRO
  • TGMasterXTGMasterX 148 Pts   -  
    @RS_master
    Lions, and other large cats, only eat animals because they have to. Their digestive systems aren't able to process plants.
    However, as humans, we can eat plants and plant-based synthetic meat. So, knowing this, why do we decide to kill another animal for our pleasure and food, when there are many more beneficial, eco-friendly substitutes?
    @xlJ_dolphin_473 Buying an electric car, or using planes less, is far more costly than become a vegetarian. Although the reduction of a carbon footprint is more significant, the process is more complicated. Also, the carbon footprint of a vegetarian is less than half of a meat consumer diet. 
    The 'it's not fair on the animals' reason is not fallacious. It is blatantly outrageous and unfair that the animals are raised to be killed! This is a complete sign of disrespect. As you stated, the animals are kept in small cages. Would you like it if you had a load of injections stabbed into you to change the way you acted, shoved in tiny cages with no light, and then slaughtered? Alan Turing was genetically modified to alter his brain so he could not concentrate, and we consider this unfair. So why do we think treating the animals the same way is reasonable and fair? 
    Okay, humans have been doing so and so for millennia. Why should we change? Wake up and smell the coffee, my friend. It is the 21st century, since the start of time, we have been improving and developing. Why should we not change when we have been changing for thousands of years?
    The food chain: We have already debated this, you can look back through the comments if you like.
    In some cases, a meat-based diet is healthier. However, some low-quality meat can bring fatal diseases. Did you know that the coronavirus, which is killing thousands of people, started from an animal being eaten?
    JGXdebatePRO
  • RS_masterRS_master 400 Pts   -  
    TGMasterX said:
    @RS_master
    Lions, and other large cats, only eat animals because they have to. Their digestive systems aren't able to process plants.
    However, as humans, we can eat plants and plant-based synthetic meat. So, knowing this, why do we decide to kill another animal for our pleasure and food, when there are many more beneficial, eco-friendly substitutes?
    @xlJ_dolphin_473 Buying an electric car, or using planes less, is far more costly than become a vegetarian. Although the reduction of a carbon footprint is more significant, the process is more complicated. Also, the carbon footprint of a vegetarian is less than half of a meat consumer diet. 
    The 'it's not fair on the animals' reason is not fallacious. It is blatantly outrageous and unfair that the animals are raised to be killed! This is a complete sign of disrespect. As you stated, the animals are kept in small cages. Would you like it if you had a load of injections stabbed into you to change the way you acted, shoved in tiny cages with no light, and then slaughtered? Alan Turing was genetically modified to alter his brain so he could not concentrate, and we consider this unfair. So why do we think treating the animals the same way is reasonable and fair? 
    Okay, humans have been doing so and so for millennia. Why should we change? Wake up and smell the coffee, my friend. It is the 21st century, since the start of time, we have been improving and developing. Why should we not change when we have been changing for thousands of years?
    The food chain: We have already debated this, you can look back through the comments if you like.
    In some cases, a meat-based diet is healthier. However, some low-quality meat can bring fatal diseases. Did you know that the coronavirus, which is killing thousands of people, started from an animal being eaten?
    @TGMasterX We still have the choice and freedom because we are capable of eating most animals hence we are near the top of the food chain.
    xlJ_dolphin_473JGXdebatePRO
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 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
Terms of Service

Get In Touch