Should We Still be Eating Meat?

[Guest Lottie]

Suggestion by Galor.

Is meat really neccessary in modern day life? Should we still be eating it?

Galor will be debating NO we should not be eating meat.

Looking for one more person to debate against Galor.

This will be a formal, 1 vs 1 debate. Each particpant will post one introduction, five body posts and one conclusion.

Edited June 29, 2005 by Lottie

[Walken]

Alrighty, although I am a vegeterian, I would very-much like to debate that we should still be eating meat in this day and age.

[Guest Lottie]

Fab!

Galor will be debating NO we should not be eating meat.

Walken will be debating YES we should still be eating meat.

Each participant will post one introduction, five body posts and one conclusion. Each post will need to be made within 7 days of your opponent.

Any questions or problems, please PM me.

Have fun and good luck!

[Guest Lottie]

Walken, I hope you win this one. I disagree with the vegetarian ideology. Especially the ones who say they won't eat animals, except fish of course.

705093[/snapback]

Mr Ed, although I am sure Walken will appreciate this vote of confidence, 2 participants have come forward and this is now a formal debate sweety. Please decline from posting on this thread. Thanks

Edited June 29, 2005 by Lottie

[about]

Thanks Lottie!

Oh, and btw Mr Ed, I partially agree with you there; it's dumb if you eat fish but not other animals, there's no point!

Introduction

Man has eaten meat since the beginning of...well...mankind It has been an intricate part of their diet, and a part of traditional meals for centuries, such as Christmas Turkey and Thanksgiving. So why should we give it up? Meat has now been found to higher the risk of a heart attack in ones person. The amount of cruelty involved to produce enough meat to keep up with world standards and the consumer market. The billions of animals massacred to satisfy our blood-thirsty craving for flesh. If you look at meat logically, it's no better than cannabalism. We're lowering our self by eating meat; we don't need to. While a lion, a snake, a fox and a domestic cat may need to eat meat, we don't. We are omnivores; we can live healthier if we didn't eat meat.

Put it this way (sourced from http://www.aapn.org/vegstats.html)

Risk of death from a heart attack by an average American man: 50%

Risk of death from a heart attack by an average American man who is vegetarian but still eats fish: 15%

Risk of death from a heart attack by an average American man who is truly vegetarian: 4%

So do you see what I mean? By eating meat not only are we responsible for the death of an animal, we are highering our risk of a heart attack!

I shall try my best to convince you that we shouldn't eat meat nowadays: it's barbaric and the meat market is incredibly inhumane. I look forward to a good debate Walken

[Walken]

Introduction

Vegeterianism is more popular than ever now days - I myself am a vegeterian.

But I am a vegeterian because I will boycott eating meat until the killing process in this country, how that meat reaches my plate, has changed.

But many people these days are more intrested in premoting themselves as vegeterians and declearing that eating animals is wrong.

I tell you this - Eating meat is not wrong. Eating animals is nature.

Human beings are carnivores. We are carnivores. Our bodies are designed to eat meat. Our bodies are supposed to eat meat. Our bodies cannot function correctly if they do not eat meat.

I ask you this, Galor: Why do we have incisors?

If eating meat is cannibalism, as you put it, why do we have these? Is it not so that we are meant to eat meat? When god (Depending on what you beleive) created us, did it have in mind for us to not eat meat? Were these incisors just for show?

Human beings are supposed to eat meat. Fact.

Myth - Eating meat is unhealthy

I would first like to confront some statistics my opponent handed.

Risk of death from a heart attack by an average American man: 50%

Risk of death from a heart attack by an average American man who is vegetarian but still eats fish: 15%

Correct me if I'm wrong, but since when is Fish not meat? How is eating a defenceless fishy any differnt from eating a defenceless pig?

So let me get this straight - Let me see if I can seriously comprehend what you're saying...

Eating lamb is cannabalism.

But eating a fish is perfectly acceptable and reasonable?

Whats the difference? Wheres the difference? Could you please point out, on the dot, exactly why you can ethically warrant eating fish, but not meat?

Moving swiftly on...

These statistics are very unreliable. For one thing, they come fromAppan - An animal rights group. Of course said group will put across these statistics, but calling them scientifically verifable is a joke.

Firstly, these statistics are irrelavent and external influences could easily factor in them and distort the truth. Not to resort to stereotypes, but the majority of vegeterians will eat a lot of vegtables, no? And a meat-eater will not, correct? In which case, whose to say that meat is the variable here, when it could in fact be other factors in the diet?

We are omnivores; we can live healthier if we didn't eat meat.

This is simply untrue. Many animals are omnivores, but don't they still eat meat? Don't they still eat meat because it's a vital part of their diet?

HEres some of my own facts...

...vegetarians are at greater risk than others for involvement in unhealthy and extreme weight control behaviors.

Vegetarian males are at particularly high risk.

Source (1)

Teenage vegetarians may be at greater risk of eating disorders and suicide than their meat-eating peers, according to researchers.

Their study found that adolescent vegetarians were more weight- and body-conscious, more likely to have been told by a doctor that they had an eating disorder, and more likely to have tried a variety of healthy and unhealthy weight control practices including diet pills, laxatives and vomiting.

The findings suggest that vegetarianism may serve as a red flag for eating and other problems...

Source (2)

And mine came from scientifically viable sites

That concludes my introduction

Good luck Galor

[about]

Hi Walken

Body Post I

Vegeterianism is more popular than ever now days - I myself am a vegeterian.

Glad to hear it

But I am a vegeterian because I will boycott eating meat until the killing process in this country, how that meat reaches my plate, has changed.

I understand where your coming from; I think killing an animal at all is outrageous. But anyways, back to topic...

But many people these days are more intrested in premoting themselves as vegeterians and declearing that eating animals is wrong.

I tell you this - Eating meat is not wrong. Eating animals is nature.

Human beings are carnivores. We are carnivores. Our bodies are designed to eat meat. Our bodies are supposed to eat meat. Our bodies cannot function correctly if they do not eat meat.

I ask you this, Galor: Why do we have incisors?

If eating meat is cannibalism, as you put it, why do we have these? Is it not so that we are meant to eat meat? When god (Depending on what you beleive) created us, did it have in mind for us to not eat meat? Were these incisors just for show?

Human beings are supposed to eat meat. Fact.

Yes, eating meat is nature. But that doesn't mean it's right.

Humans are carnivores, because they eat meat, and herbivores, because they eat plants. Thus, because they are both carnivores AND herbivores, they are betterly (is that a word ) known as omnivores. Our bodies are designed to eat meat, as you said. That is true. Our bodies are supposed to eat meat, as you said. True again. Our bodies cannot function correctly without meat. COMPLETELY FALSE

Our bodies can function perfectly without the need for meat. You're just assumpting this, because if our bodies couldn't function correctly without meat, nobody would be a vegetarian, simply because they couldn't; it wouldn't be possible for them. I have been a vegetarian for at least half a year now and not once have I experienced any physical (or mental, in that case ) side effects. And now, I say something with complete truth, since I have become vegetarian I haven't become ill. Not even once.And I haven't missed a single day of school (cursed school! ) since i've become vegetarian either. And so thus, I state this with the utmost confidence, Not eating meat doesn't mean that your body won't function correctly", and I challenge you to disprove me.

The reason we have incisors, is, as you stated earlier, we were made and are supposed to eat meat. But just because we are made and are supposed to do something, doesn't necessarily mean that's right. Soldiers are supposed to kill; is killing right? Vivisectors (those b******s!) are supposed to torture animals, but that does that mean it's right? Of course not. Eating meat is the same; just cos we're supposed to eat it, doesn't mean its right, and certainly doesn't meant we have to.

Lol Walken. I never said eating meat was cannibalism I said it's no better than cannibalism! And I'm atheist (for now, anyways ), so I don't believe God existed. And even if He did (does), would He really want us to kill other animals to feed ourselves?

Human beings are supposed to eat meat. Fact. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's right, we have to, and can't live perfectly fine without it.

And, while I'm on the subject, I'm going to bring up something; did you know, that if everyone in the world was to stop eating meat, hunger in the world would dissapear basically over night? Tis very true; half of the world's grain and a staggering 95% of the world's soybeans are fed to livestock; now just imagine if we stopped giving all of this to livestock and instead gave half of the world's grain and the staggering 95% of the world's soyabeans to those starving. Au revoir, world hunger.

sourcing from http://vegetarianaction.org.au/Perspectives/PPHunger.htm

* One acre of land can yield 75 kilos of beef or 9,000 kilos of potatoes.

* It takes 9 kilos of plant-based protein (which could be eaten by people) to produce 450g of steak. We get back less than 5% of what we put in.

* Up to 30 times as many people can be fed from the same land on a vegetarian diet as opposed to a meat-based diet.

x30 the world's food supplies for humans sound's good to me. So how about we stop all this evil meat-eating, sit down and have a nice warm glass of soy-milk (maybe that wasn't the best thing to say... )

Myth - Eating meat is unhealthy

I would first like to confront some statistics my opponent handed.

Risk of death from a heart attack by an average American man: 50%

Risk of death from a heart attack by an average American man who is vegetarian but still eats fish: 15%

Correct me if I'm wrong, but since when is Fish not meat? How is eating a defenceless fishy any differnt from eating a defenceless pig?

So let me get this straight - Let me see if I can seriously comprehend what you're saying...

Eating lamb is cannabalism.

But eating a fish is perfectly acceptable and reasonable?

Whats the difference? Wheres the difference? Could you please point out, on the dot, exactly why you can ethically warrant eating fish, but not meat?

Eating meat is unhealthy isn't a myth! That's totally wrong! It's been very thorougly proved that eating meat increases your risk of a heart attack and cancer. Is that healthy?

Re'ing the bit about the difference between a fish and a pig; exactly. Fish is still meat; and considering all the sewage we dump into the sea every year, and these fish live in these sewage infested oceans, and then we eat the fish...ewwww. That's like sticking some food into your toilet after a fresh cr...maybe I shouldn't go there lol. Anyways, the point is, meat is meat, and fish is meat. So even if you don't eat animals, but eat fish, you're not going to get the full benefits of being a 'pure vegetarian'; your risk of a heart attack, although still greatly reduced, could be reduced even more if you don't eat fish.

Dude...eating a lamb isn't cannabalism! Where'd you get that idea from All I said was that eating meat is no better than canabalism, not that it IS cannabalism!

And eating a fish isn't perfectly acceptable, while a lamb isn't. I wasn't trying to imply that, and, if anything, trying to imply the very opposite.

If I give a statistic, showing differences between a 'vegetarian' who eats fish and a vegetarian who doesn't, does not mean I'm trying to say it's ethically OK to eat fish. That is, in my eyes, racist (sounds stupid, but it is!), putting one above another because of what race (in this case, species) they are. Hmmm...maybe it should be speciesism, not racism

Moving swiftly on...

These statistics are very unreliable. For one thing, they come fromAppan - An animal rights group. Of course said group will put across these statistics, but calling them scientifically verifable is a joke.

That is very stereotypical of you Walken. Just because the statistics come from an animal rights group, doesn't necessarily mean that the statistics are wrong. You see, animal rights groups don't need to mutate their statistics, cos they know they're right in what they're doing, while pro animal cruelty groups do, cos, even if they don't know it, they're in the wrong! [/end of rant]

Firstly, these statistics are irrelavent and external influences could easily factor in them and distort the truth. Not to resort to stereotypes, but the majority of vegeterians will eat a lot of vegtables, no? And a meat-eater will not, correct? In which case, whose to say that meat is the variable here, when it could in fact be other factors in the diet?

These statistics are not irrelevant, at all, in fact they're very relevant. External influences yes, they may have distorted these statistics, but it's fact: like it or don't like it. What these statistics are basically trying to get across is that eating meat highers your risk of a heart attack (or does not eating meat lower it?). You seem to be making a lot of assumptions. How do you know these statistics are wrong? You're just speculating.

Vegetarians will eat alot of vegetables, obviously. Meat eaters may eat a lot of vegetables as well; it depends. But meat is the factor here, Walken. Like I said, like it or not; you have to accept it. It's pasted all over the internet, and mentioned occasionally even in newspapers, Meat is a primary factor towards heart attacks, cancer, and other diseases.

This is simply untrue. Many animals are omnivores, but don't they still eat meat? Don't they still eat meat because it's a vital part of their diet?

HEres some of my own facts...

Firstly, meat is not a vital part of their diet. But it's the easiest and most efficient source of food for them. But we, being humans (well you being a human anyway ), with our (your ) advanced civilisations and huge range of foods to choose from, do we really need meat??? No! We don't! Why can't we just give it up! It's useless; why should it still be allowed to continue? Uhuh, we're made to eat meat, but do we really still need meat? Meat is no more needed that fur; maybe needed for times gone by, but not needed now,

...vegetarians are at greater risk than others for involvement in unhealthy and extreme weight control behaviors.

I am of perfect weight; and I'm vegetarian. About half of my class at school are vegetarian (although they're mainly for religious reasons) and they're all of perfect weight. And, may I add, they (and I) lead perfectly normal and great lives. Alot of athletes are vegetarian; you don't see athletes being underweight, do you?

Vegetarian males are at particularly high risk.

Of what? Underweightedness ()?

I'm going to have to laugh at those statistics; I've never met or heard of an underweight vegetarian. And may I ask, Walken, have you?

Teenage vegetarians may be at greater risk of eating disorders and suicide than their meat-eating peers, according to researchers.

Omg... suicide and eating disorders? Omg... the apple juice nearly came out of my nose there Since when was suicide on the agenda for vegetarian teenagers? And eating disorders? Give me a break; there are millions of vegetarians in the world today. And they have excellent and well thought out diets; ok, yes I admit, it does seem your more likely to get an eating disorder if your vegetarian than if you're a meat-eater. But it's still very unlikely; and vegetarianism isn't the main factor in eating disorders. Not at all. People's concern with how they look is the main factor there

Their study found that adolescent vegetarians were more weight- and body-conscious, more likely to have been told by a doctor that they had an eating disorder, and more likely to have tried a variety of healthy and unhealthy weight control practices including diet pills, laxatives and vomiting.

Weight and body conscious; well yeah, I've become more weight and body conscious since I've become vegetarian. But is that necessarily a bad thing? More likely to be told by a doctor they have an eating disorder; still extremely unlikely though. And I, personally, think this is partly due to the fact that some doctors are prejudice against vegetarians; but that's just my double sided two cents;

The findings suggest that vegetarianism may serve as a red flag for eating and other problems...

Sorry, no, but that is untrue. Vegetarians are highly unlikely to develop eating problems, more likely than meat eaters, but still very unlikely. If anything, becoming a vegetarian should be a green flag for eating; on the way to a healthier diet and not eating bits of dead animals

And mine came from scientifically viable sites 

That concludes my introduction

Lol Walken that was one damn long introduction; but b.o.t, you made a lot of assumptions that were completely untrue; research before you write

[Walken]

First main body post

In this post I will stick to my guns of countering, because a couple of the points my opponents have put across will allow me to put my content and arguements within the counter-arguements.

Yes, eating meat is nature. But that doesn't mean it's right.

Well in that case come by this afternoon, I have two cats who need explained the ethics of their dinner.

Humans are carnivores, because they eat meat, and herbivores, because they eat plants. Thus, because they are both carnivores AND herbivores, they are betterly (is that a word ) known as omnivores.

Actually regardless of your diet, all humans are omnivores. They are designed that way and born that way.

I have been a vegetarian for at least half a year now and not once have I experienced any physical (or mental, in that case ) side effects. And now, I say something with complete truth, since I have become vegetarian I haven't become ill. Not even once.

You are probably suffering side-effects of your diet you are not even aware of. I know I was in the first half a year of vegeterianism. Then I found out I was anemic.

This website will explain it more throughly, and why vegeterians are the most vulnerable to anemia by far. I advise you to read through it.

I state this with the utmost confidence, Not eating meat doesn't mean that your body won't function correctly", and I challenge you to disprove me.

I have already done so, but will continue to do so in this post to ensure I get my point across.

But just because we are made and are supposed to do something, doesn't necessarily mean that's right. Soldiers are supposed to kill; is killing right? Vivisectors (those b******s!) are supposed to torture animals, but that does that mean it's right?

You cannot compare those. Soldiers and Vivisectors are trained to kill and conduct experiments on animals. Humans are born to eat meat. It's natrual, it's instinct, it's crucial to our survival.

Lol Walken. I never said eating meat was cannibalism  I said it's no better than cannibalism!

You said that it was no better than canablism in your first post, meaning this ethically. I was simply pointing across the same point. I mean it in an ethical sense, not literally.

And I'm atheist (for now, anyways ), so I don't believe God existed. And even if He did (does), would He really want us to kill other animals to feed ourselves?

Well, since you bought it up - Jesus was not a vegeterian. Meat was part of his diet.

And further more, Christians used to beleive that eating pigs was wrong - an old jewish teaching states them to be dirty and unfit for human consumption. In the bible, god brings a pig down to the christians and tells them to eat it. They say no, because it's dirty and unfit for human consumption, to which god asks them how they dare accuse his creation of being dirty, and tells them once more to eat the pig.

So yes, god would.

And, while I'm on the subject, I'm going to bring up something; did you know, that if everyone in the world was to stop eating meat, hunger in the world would dissapear basically over night?

I was absoloubtly sure you'd bring this up - I am well prepared.

It is a myth, nothing more.

Some vegetarians, yourself included, claim that livestock require pasturage that could be used to farm grains to feed starving people in Third World countries.

Firstly, The argument ignores the fact that about 2/3 of our Earth's dry land is unsuitable for farming. It is primarily the open range, desert and mountainous areas that provide food to grazing animals and that land is currently being put to good use.

It is also faulty because it ignores the fact that live stock makes vital contributions to humanitys-well-being besides meat. It is also misleading to think that the foods grown and given to feed livestock could be diverted to feed humans.

"Agricultural animals have always made a major contribution to the welfare of human societies by providing food, shelter, fuel, fertilizer and other products and services. They are a renewable resource, and utilize another renewable resource, plants, to produce these products and services. In addition, the manure produced by the animals helps improve soil fertility and, thus, aids the plants. In some developing countries the manure cannot be utilized as a fertilizer but is dried as a source of fuel.

"There are many who feel that because the world population is growing at a faster rate than is the food supply, we are becoming less and less able to afford animal foods because feeding plant products to animals is an inefficient use of potential human food. It is true that it is more efficient for humans to eat plant products directly rather than to allow animals to convert them to human food. At best, animals only produce one pound or less of human food for each three pounds of plants eaten. However, this inefficiency only applies to those plants and plant products that the human can utilize. The fact is that over two-thirds of the feed fed to animals consists of substances that are either undesirable or completely unsuited for human food. Thus, by their ability to convert inedible plant materials to human food, animals not only do not compete with the human rather they aid greatly in improving both the quantity and the quality of the diets of human societies."

Further more, at the present time there is more than enough food grown in the world to feed all people on the planet. The problem is widespread poverty making it impossible for the starving poor to afford it.

In a comprehensive report, the Population Reference Bureau attributed the world hunger problem to poverty, not meat-eating. It also did not consider mass vegetarianism to be a solution for world hunger.

What if?

So what would happen, if the world turned vegeterian overnight?

Well firstly, and obviously, the demand for meat in the United States and Europe would fall, costing hundreds of millions of people there livelihoods. The supply of grain would dramatically increase, true, but the buying power of poor [starving] people in Africa and Asia wouldn't change at all.

There would be a mass exodus from farming. Whereas today the total amount of grains produced could feed 10 billion people, the total amount of grain grown in this post-meat world would likely fall back to about 7 or 8 billion. The trend of farmers selling their land to developers and others would accelerate quickly.

In other words, there would be less food available for the world to eat. Furthermore, the monoculture of grains and legumes, which is what would happen if animal husbandry were abandoned and the world relied exclusively on plant foods for its food, would rapidly deplete the soil and require the heavy use of artificial fertilizers, one ton of which requires ten tons of crude oil to produce

So, mass-vegeterianism would actually damage our world, not help it at all.

It would in fact, worsen world hunger.

So much for that myth

Eating meat is unhealthy isn't a myth!

Oh isn't it?

Myth: Eating meat is unhealthy.

Frequently vegans and vegetarians will try to scare people into avoiding animal foods and fats by claiming that vegetarian diets offer protection from certain chronic diseases like osteoporosis, kidney disease, heart disease, and cancer.

Such claims, however, are hard to reconcile with historical and anthropological facts. All of the diseases mentioned are primarily 20th century occurrences, yet people have been eating meat and animal fat for many thousands of years.

Not to mention that the famous Dr. Price conducted research that ultimately showed that there were/are several native peoples around the world (the Innuit, Maasai, Swiss, etc.) whose traditional diets were/are very rich in animal products, but who nevertheless did/do not suffer from the above-mentioned illnesses.

Dr. George Mann’s independent studies of the Maasai done many years after Dr. Price, confirmed the fact that the Maasai, despite being almost exclusive meat eaters, nevertheless, had little to no incidence of heart disease, or other chronic illnesses such as those mentioned above.

This proves that, as I already stated, other factors besides animal foods are at work in causing these diseases.

Heart Disease

Worthy of special mention because my opponent bought it up...

The belief that animal protein contributes to heart disease is a popular one that has no foundation in nutritional science. Outside of questionable studies, there is little data to support the idea that meat-eating leads to heart disease. For example, the French have one of the highest per capita consumption of meat, yet have low rates of heart disease. In Greece, meat consumption is higher than average but rates of heart disease are low there as well. Finally, in Spain, an increase in meat eating (in conjunction with a reduction in sugar and high carbohydrate intake) led to a decrease in heart disease

And Cancer, which my opponent also mentioned...

The belief that meat, in particular red meat, contributes to cancer is, like heart disease, a popular idea that is not supported by the facts. Although it is true that some studies have shown a connection between meat eating and some types of cancer, its important to look at the studies carefully to determine what kind of meat is being discussed, as well as the preparation methods used. Since we only have one word for “meat” in English, it is often difficult to know which “meat” is under discussion in a study unless the authors of the study specifically say so.

Back to the countering, perhaps?

It's been very thorougly proved that eating meat increases your risk of a heart attack and cancer.

I beleive I have just proved otherwise.

That is very stereotypical of you Walken. Just because the statistics come from an animal rights group, doesn't necessarily mean that the statistics are wrong.

But it does mean they are horribly bias, therefore unreliable. And seeing as I just proved the statistics borrowed from them were wrong, I'd say they were indeed False.

These statistics are not irrelevant, at all, in fact they're very relevant. External influences yes, they may have distorted these statistics, but it's fact: like it or don't like it. Meat is a primary factor towards heart attacks, cancer, and other diseases.

I have already proved that it is not a fact, but a myth and a lie.

I'm going to have to laugh at those statistics

Why? Because they are from scientifically viable and un-bias sites

I've never met or heard of an underweight vegetarian. And may I ask, Walken, have you?

I myself suffer from self-imposed malnutrition as a direct result of my vegeterian diet. And I have been a vegeterian a lot longer than you have.

Omg...  suicide and eating disorders? Omg... the apple juice nearly came out of my nose there

Isn't it funny how rather than even attempt to counter the point you will just say "I'm going to laugth at these statistics" or "These statistics make me laugth" then move on? It does nothing for your case, you know.

Vegetarians are highly unlikely to develop eating problems, more likely than meat eaters

You heard it from him folks! "Vegeterians are more likely to develop eating disorders than meat-eaters."

you made a lot of assumptions that were completely untrue; research before you write

I find that incredible offensive coming from you. I have consistently proved evreything I said in my introduction in this post, where as you have only offered half-baked theorys and statistics and arguements from bias sites. As you can plainly see from this post, I have clearly put a lot more research into this than you, so please don't ask me to research before I write.

This concludes my first main body post. Good luck in your second, Galor.

[about]

Sorry for taking so long I was stumped there for a bit

Hi Walken! Firstly off,

you made a lot of assumptions that were completely untrue; research before you write

I find that incredible offensive coming from you. I have consistently proved evreything I said in my introduction in this post, where as you have only offered half-baked theorys and statistics and arguements from bias sites. As you can plainly see from this post, I have clearly put a lot more research into this than you, so please don't ask me to research before I write.

Sorry about that Walken the reason I said that was because all the research I've done says the exact opposite of what you've said. And they're 'scientifically viable'. Again, sorry, I'll try not to be a criticising ass in future

Body Post II

Good body post Walken

Unlike most pro-vegetarians, I actually prefer to argue about vegetarianism on ethical terms, not medical terms, as I did in my first body post. But in this post, after 'poking holes' in your arguement (which is going to take a bit of time ) I'm going to explain the ethical side to vivisection; which, I'm sure Walken, as you told me earlier, you know about.

Yes, eating meat is nature. But that doesn't mean it's right.

Well in that case come by this afternoon, I have two cats who need explained the ethics of their dinner.

If you've noticed, I wasn't talking about cats or other animals there: I was talking about humans. There's a difference between a cat and a human: firstly, bilogically, cats are carnivores: they can't survive without meat. And secondly, humans are

omnivores, they can live without meat. So you're probably sayign "How does taht explain how eating meat isn't right?" For that, we have to look at it ethically. Eating meat requires that a life is ended; another living, breathing creature with blood flowing though their veins to die. And, in the animal world, usually very painfully. And it's even worse in the human world; very, very much worse: but I shall explain about that later. In other words, killing another creature, even if you have too to survive; is wrong. Yes, I realise carnivorous animals can't live without meat; and so they have to. And that if they don't they'll die themselves. Tis a nasty world out there: dog eat dog but I personally think killing another living creature is wrong, even if it is necessary.

Humans are carnivores, because they eat meat, and herbivores, because they eat plants. Thus, because they are both carnivores AND herbivores, they are betterly (is that a word ) known as omnivores.

Actually regardless of your diet, all humans are omnivores. They are designed that way and born that way.

Yes, Humans are omnivores, and designed to eat meat. But eating meat is barbaric; there's a big difference between a human and another animal. A human is intelligent enough to be able to reason about killing another and eating their meat; even if we don't do the killing, we are very much responsible for their death. By buying and eating their meat, we are giving money to the companies who carry out these massacres; thus they'll carry out more massacres because they get money for it. Tis a vicious circle. But, remember, we can willingly stop eating meat, because we can realise it's wrong. So why not? It's healthier. It's cheaper. It's more humane. It's better.

I have been a vegetarian for at least half a year now and not once have I experienced any physical (or mental, in that case ) side effects. And now, I say something with complete truth, since I have become vegetarian I haven't become ill. Not even once.

You are probably suffering side-effects of your diet you are not even aware of. I know I was in the first half a year of vegeterianism. Then I found out I was anemic.

This website will explain it more throughly, and why vegeterians are the most vulnerable to anemia by far. I advise you to read through it.

That's a depressing story; but I am not suffering side effects of my vegetarian diet. I am quite perfectly healthy and have no eating problems. I can see, and accept that vegetarians are more likely to eating disorders. And also I accept that a vegetarian diet is a hard thing to stick to; but it's worth it in the long run. No matter how much you accuse my sites of being 'bi-assed' it's a very well known and proved fact that meat does damage your health.

I state this with the utmost confidence, Not eating meat doesn't mean that your body won't function correctly", and I challenge you to disprove me.

I have already done so, but will continue to do so in this post to ensure I get my point across.

I stick by that point. Although maybe a few will get eating disorders, the vast majority of vegetarians don't; in fact, if anything, their body will function better without fat-filled calorie-stuffed flesh clogging up their system (literally, your arteries can get blocked from all the fat in meat!)

But just because we are made and are supposed to do something, doesn't necessarily mean that's right. Soldiers are supposed to kill; is killing right? Vivisectors (those b******s!) are supposed to torture animals, but that does that mean it's right?

You cannot compare those. Soldiers and Vivisectors are trained to kill and conduct experiments on animals. Humans are born to eat meat. It's natrual, it's instinct, it's crucial to our survival.

Are you trying to say Humans are born to kill? Well, yes, technically we are born to kill, for food. And I can compare meat-eaters, well the ones who kill the animals anyways, to soldiers and vivisectors. They all kill, and they don't have too. Vivisectors are evil, sadistic creatures who live 9/10ths of their lives torturing and killing animals. But they don't have to. They can quite easily walk out and quit (but they won't, but that's an entirely different debate ). People who sign up to the army in the first place didn't have to; I have no idea why anyone would want to sign up so that they can kill people, but anyways, what I'm trying to say is killing is all the same; wrong, but sometimes necessary.

You said eatign meat is natural. Yeah. It's instinct. Yeah. It's crucial to our survival. Wrong. If it was, would you or I still be alive after not eating meat? My point proved.

And I'm atheist (for now, anyways ), so I don't believe God existed. And even if He did (does), would He really want us to kill other animals to feed ourselves?

Well, since you bought it up - Jesus was not a vegeterian. Meat was part of his diet.

And further more, Christians used to beleive that eating pigs was wrong - an old jewish teaching states them to be dirty and unfit for human consumption. In the bible, god brings a pig down to the christians and tells them to eat it. They say no, because it's dirty and unfit for human consumption, to which god asks them how they dare accuse his creation of being dirty, and tells them once more to eat the pig.

So yes, god would. thumbsup.gif

According to my beliefs, God isn't real. And all the things that apparently happened, didn't. Uhuh, God came down to earth and ordered the Christians to eat a pig. This story was probably written by men, and isn't true. It's been moulded to fit their beliefs, if there was a God, he wouldn't come down and order some people to murder and eat the flesh of one of his creations. He would do the exact opposite.

And Jesus not being a vegetarian; yeah, and? Vegetarianism was non existent back then; it wasn't possible, you ate what you get. But, if you look later on in the future, when vegetarianism becomes possible, all the great wise men were vegetarian, such as Gandhi.

But let's try and keep religion out of this; it helps neither side since it is unknown if it is to be true or not.

And, while I'm on the subject, I'm going to bring up something; did you know, that if everyone in the world was to stop eating meat, hunger in the world would dissapear basically over night?

I was absoloubtly sure you'd bring this up - I am well prepared.

It is a myth, nothing more.

Some vegetarians, yourself included, claim that livestock require pasturage that could be used to farm grains to feed starving people in Third World countries.

Firstly, The argument ignores the fact that about 2/3 of our Earth's dry land is unsuitable for farming. It is primarily the open range, desert and mountainous areas that provide food to grazing animals and that land is currently being put to good use.

It is also faulty because it ignores the fact that live stock makes vital contributions to humanitys-well-being besides meat. It is also misleading to think that the foods grown and given to feed livestock could be diverted to feed humans.

Tis a myth, or is it?

1/3 of the earths land surface is suitable for farming. You're forgetting Walken, that's still a hell of a lot. And if all of it was used to produce edible plants (such as grain) and fruit bearing tree's (apple, orange trees) AND vegetables, we would have more than enough to feed the world. As long as the majority is used by livestock, the world will be poverty-stricken, because there isn't enough livestock meat to feed the whole world. The land isn't being put to good use; as long as the vast majority is used for livestock, poverty will continue.

Livestock makes vital contributiosn to humanities' well being. Like what? McDonalds (not being sarcastic here)!? Put it this way; while some countries are in surplus of food, particularly America and European countries, others are struggling to find enough to survive. While Americans can dash out at meat restaurants (and become obese), there are people in Africa living in complete poverty. Lets even it out shall we; no more inefficient meat, lots of grain and other stuff like that, distribute it, and hey presto, auf wiedersehn hunger and poverty!

It is NOT misleading to think that what livestock are fed on could be diverted to feed humans; I mean, why not? What's to say we couldn't?

"Agricultural animals have always made a major contribution to the welfare of human societies by providing food, shelter, fuel, fertilizer and other products and services. They are a renewable resource, and utilize another renewable resource, plants, to produce these products and services. In addition, the manure produced by the animals helps improve soil fertility and, thus, aids the plants. In some developing countries the manure cannot be utilized as a fertilizer but is dried as a source of fuel.

"There are many who feel that because the world population is growing at a faster rate than is the food supply, we are becoming less and less able to afford animal foods because feeding plant products to animals is an inefficient use of potential human food. It is true that it is more efficient for humans to eat plant products directly rather than to allow animals to convert them to human food. At best, animals only produce one pound or less of human food for each three pounds of plants eaten. However, this inefficiency only applies to those plants and plant products that the human can utilize. The fact is that over two-thirds of the feed fed to animals consists of substances that are either undesirable or completely unsuited for human food. Thus, by their ability to convert inedible plant materials to human food, animals not only do not compete with the human rather they aid greatly in improving both the quantity and the quality of the diets of human societies."

Said it yourself; or quoted anyways, it is so much more efficient to use plants instead of meat. And so yeah, they do convert inedible splanst into edible stuff (meat). But it's still not as efficient as if we used the farmland for plants.

Further more, at the present time there is more than enough food grown in the world to feed all people on the planet. The problem is widespread poverty making it impossible for the starving poor to afford it.

In a comprehensive report, the Population Reference Bureau attributed the world hunger problem to poverty, not meat-eating. It also did not consider mass vegetarianism to be a solution for world hunger.

There is enough food in the world for everyone with meat around, yes; it's our capitalist (and not communist, which, believe it or not, WOULD solve this) governments that are keeping hunger and poverty going on. Well, if we want to keep out capitalist way of life and solve world hunger, the solution is mass vegetarianism.

What if?

So what would happen, if the world turned vegeterian overnight?

Well firstly, and obviously, the demand for meat in the United States and Europe would fall, costing hundreds of millions of people there livelihoods. The supply of grain would dramatically increase, true, but the buying power of poor [starving] people in Africa and Asia wouldn't change at all.

The people who kill these animals deserve to lose their livelihood; as I shall explain later, and I'm sure you will agree with me, Walken.

Yes, thats true, the people in africa and asia's buying power wouldn't exactly increase. But charitues like G8 and Oxfam would provide the money for them; enough at least to buy some grain and start their own farms. In Asia, although most of the land isn't suitable for western farming, it can be used as rice paddys. Close down those meat factories(!), and use the land to produce surplus of rice! More than enough to feed Asia! Africa's land is overrun with desert and grasslands; but that doesn't necessarily mean it's bad for farming (except for maybe the deserts ); land can be cultivated. In the long run, even increasing vegetarianism by 10% woudl provide enough room to cultivate enough food for everyone. Phew!

There would be a mass exodus from farming. Whereas today the total amount of grains produced could feed 10 billion people, the total amount of grain grown in this post-meat world would likely fall back to about 7 or 8 billion. The trend of farmers selling their land to developers and others would accelerate quickly.

Only the factory farms would close down; the so-called 'organic' farms could still stay in business; simply by switching from supplying meat to supplying food. Most wouldn't sell their land to developers; they would simply switch over. The plant food count would INCREASE in a post-meat world; not the other way around. Of course some farmers will stop; but in the east they would increase.

In other words, there would be less food available for the world to eat. Furthermore, the monoculture of grains and legumes, which is what would happen if animal husbandry were abandoned and the world relied exclusively on plant foods for its food, would rapidly deplete the soil and require the heavy use of artificial fertilizers, one ton of which requires ten tons of crude oil to produce

Less food? Really? The food would supply would increase; more room for farming plants; more plants for eating. Need for lots of fertilisers? Maybe; but only in unfertile regions; places such as The River Nile, if we abolished The Suez Canal, could easily support lots of plant farms. And have you ever heard of irrigation canals? And crop cycling? Depleting the soil isn't such a big problem as it sounds.

So, mass-vegeterianism would actually damage our world, not help it at all.

It would in fact, worsen world hunger.

So much for that myth

I stick by my point; mass-vegetarianism will not worsen world hunger. It will make it better. And if you can't take my word for it, take theirs;

http://www.innvista.com/health/nutrition/diet/vworld.htm

May I add innvista is a 'scientifically viable' site.

And also may I add, and you've quoted thsi yourself; more food can be produced on 1 acre of land with plants than can with meat.

Myth: Eating meat is unhealthy.

Frequently vegans and vegetarians will try to scare people into avoiding animal foods and fats by claiming that vegetarian diets offer protection from certain chronic diseases like osteoporosis, kidney disease, heart disease, and cancer.

I strongyly stick by this point; eating meat is unhealthy!

--

They don't give protection. But they do reduce the risk greatly;

Antioxidant Allies

Antioxidants protect against more than 60 diseases. Found mostly in fruit and vegetables. They destroy 'free radicals'.

Protein Plus

'Vegetarians have excellent health. Protein is not a limiting factor.'

US Government

Cutting Cholesterol

A vegetarian diet can reduce cholesterol levels. (Cholesterol is linked to heart disease – fruit and vegetables contain none.)

BMA

Free Folic Acid

Vegetarians and vegans have higher intakes of folic acid than omnivores.

BMA

Cool for Kids

A vegetarian diet meets all the nutritional needs of infants and adolescents.

ADA/BMA

Iron – the Truth

Vegetarians are no more likely to suffer anaemia than meat eaters.

ADA/BMA

Kitchen Zinc

Zinc levels are normal in vegetarians.

ADA

Source: http://www.urban75.com/Mag/veggie.html

(not going to quote because it's too long)

Click and read

Such claims, however, are hard to reconcile with historical and anthropological facts. All of the diseases mentioned are primarily 20th century occurrences, yet people have been eating meat and animal fat for many thousands of years.

Thousands of years ago, people didn't eat as much meat as we do today, so the diseases wouldn't of occured. But this doesn't mean we should just reduce our meat intake; we should abolish it altogether, because we are healthier anyways if we don't eat meat.

Read what I've said above; scientifically viable statistics about vegetarianism. And here's some more; eating meat is unhealthy.

Not to mention that the famous Dr. Price conducted research that ultimately showed that there were/are several native peoples around the world (the Innuit, Maasai, Swiss, etc.) whose traditional diets were/are very rich in animal products, but who nevertheless did/do not suffer from the above-mentioned illnesses.

They needed to eat meat to survive, (except for the Swiss, I don't understand that ) because it was the most abundant food available at the time. In thsi day and age though, there are other more abundant plant alternatives to meat, that may I add, are healthier. And the reason they didn't suffer those diseases was probably because they didn't over-eat, which is the main reason for meat-related diseases today. But, like I said above, it's still more beneficial to just not eat meat altogether.

Dr. George Mann’s independent studies of the Maasai done many years after Dr. Price, confirmed the fact that the Maasai, despite being almost exclusive meat eaters, nevertheless, had little to no incidence of heart disease, or other chronic illnesses such as those mentioned above.

Yes, because, like I've said before, they don't overeat meat. By over-eat meat, I mean as in like Westerners do; lots of junk food. But again, still, it is more beneficial to not eat meat altogether; tis unethical. -In the case of the Masaai, tis wrong, but necessary.

This proves that, as I already stated, other factors besides animal foods are at work in causing these diseases.

True, but meat does play a big part, like it or not.

Worthy of special mention because my opponent bought it up...

The belief that animal protein contributes to heart disease is a popular one that has no foundation in nutritional science. Outside of questionable studies, there is little data to support the idea that meat-eating leads to heart disease. For example, the French have one of the highest per capita consumption of meat, yet have low rates of heart disease. In Greece, meat consumption is higher than average but rates of heart disease are low there as well. Finally, in Spain, an increase in meat eating (in conjunction with a reduction in sugar and high carbohydrate intake) led to a decrease in heart disease

Where'd you get this btw?

All I can say to that is it has been proven that eating meat contributes to heart disease. Is it not true that meat is packed with cholestorol and saturated fats?

Source: http://www.goveg.com/feat/heartdisease/

As these fatty substances, or “plaques,” build up inside the walls of arteries, blood flow to all areas of the body is impeded. This artery damage is called atherosclerosis. It often begins very early in life and develops gradually. When too little blood reaches various regions of the body, normal immune systems are impaired, setting people up for a number of diseases, most notably heart disease. Heart disease is the number one health problem in the United States today and, according to the American Heart Association, the single leading cause of death. Most heart disease is diet-related—caused by animal products. Research conducted by Dr. T. Colin Campbell shows a highly significant correlation between the consumption of even small amounts of animal-based foods and the increasing prevalence of heart disease.

A major study published in February 2005 reconfirmed the link between meat consumption and heart problems. The study, which was published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, concluded that among the 29,000 participants, those who ate the most meat were also at the greatest risk for heart disease. The researchers also reported that a high intake of protein from vegetable sources like tofu, nuts, and beans lowers our risk of heart disease by 30 percent. Dr. Linda E. Kelemen, the scientist who headed the study, told reporters, “Not all proteins are equal”—while vegetable protein can help keep our hearts healthy, eating animal protein can put us in an early grave.

And Cancer, which my opponent also mentioned...

The belief that meat, in particular red meat, contributes to cancer is, like heart disease, a popular idea that is not supported by the facts. Although it is true that some studies have shown a connection between meat eating and some types of cancer, its important to look at the studies carefully to determine what kind of meat is being discussed, as well as the preparation methods used. Since we only have one word for “meat” in English, it is often difficult to know which “meat” is under discussion in a study unless the authors of the study specifically say so.

And the point is, and this quote admits, studies have shown a link between meat and cancer. What more is there to it? FACT: Meat is a cause of cancer.

That is very stereotypical of you Walken. Just because the statistics come from an animal rights group, doesn't necessarily mean that the statistics are wrong.

But it does mean they are horribly bias, therefore unreliable. And seeing as I just proved the statistics borrowed from them were wrong, I'd say they were indeed False.

What proof that they're wrong? --And it has been found that vegetarians have lower risks of heart disease;

Heart Disease – No.1 Killer

Vegetarians have half to three-quarters the risk of dying of heart disease compared to non-vegetarians.

PCRM

source: The guys at urban75 http://www.urban75.com/Mag/veggie.html

It's been very thorougly proved that eating meat increases your risk of a heart attack and cancer.

I beleive I have just proved otherwise.

Or have you? Read the statistics above.

I'm going to have to laugh at those statistics

Why? Because they are from scientifically viable and un-bias sites

No, because it's funny and wrong. "Particulary high risk" Vegetarianism doesn't mean your going to become underwight, it means that your going to be a normal weight. Simple equasion Meat = overweight, Veggie = normal weight.

These statistics are not irrelevant, at all, in fact they're very relevant. External influences yes, they may have distorted these statistics, but it's fact: like it or don't like it. Meat is a primary factor towards heart attacks, cancer, and other diseases.

I have already proved that it is not a fact, but a myth and a lie.

Read up what I've said and the statistics I given; I think I've proved that they do

I've never met or heard of an underweight vegetarian. And may I ask, Walken, have you?

I myself suffer from self-imposed malnutrition as a direct result of my vegeterian diet. And I have been a vegeterian a lot longer than you have.

Change your diet then; eat more spinach, for iron, and the reason your malnutritione d is probably because you don;'t eat enough; eating disorder? But are you underweigth?

Omg... suicide and eating disorders? Omg... the apple juice nearly came out of my nose there

Isn't it funny how rather than even attempt to counter the point you will just say "I'm going to laugth at these statistics" or "These statistics make me laugth" then move on? It does nothing for your case, you know.

I think it's a bit 'extreme' to say that vegetarians are more likely to commit suicide, don't you? If anything, I think those stats are biased; I mean, what would vegetarianism have to do with suicide? Other factors lead to suicide, like bullying and debt. But let's not go there;

Vegetarians are highly unlikely to develop eating problems, more likely than meat eaters

You heard it from him folks! "Vegeterians are more likely to develop eating disorders than meat-eaters."

I think you missed out the bit after it in your quote Walken; 'but still very unlikely'

you made a lot of assumptions that were completely untrue; research before you write

I find that incredible offensive coming from you. I have consistently proved evreything I said in my introduction in this post, where as you have only offered half-baked theorys and statistics and arguements from bias sites. As you can plainly see from this post, I have clearly put a lot more research into this than you, so please don't ask me to research before I write.

Again, sorry, but my research directly contradicts yours. Yes, I am a retard

But Walken, the bit you said about my theories being half-baked and the statistics and arguements and that; I personally find that offencive. Not terribly, but offencive none the less. I've gone back and redone my research, using more 'scientifically viable' sites as you've said.

What I am about to say next may shock you; I am sure you will agree with me, Walken, that this is completely wrong and totally injustifiable. please tell me if you disagree.

ETHICS

The main reason why I am vegetarian, the gross and shocking amount of cruelty involved. I'm not really going to go into detail until my next post, but I'm sure you'll agree with me that this is horrific and terrible. What I am about to give you is a few biographies of some animals bred to be eaten, (short of course, as their lives are).

CHICKEN: Born. If they are (not it) male, they are instantly killed (usually via gassing) and ground up to make chicken nuggets. Yum On the other hand, if they're female, they are kept alive and stuffed into small cages in a factory with other chickens. Btw, they're beaks are removed so that they don't peck at other chickens while in a cage with them, a common consequence of overcrowding for chickens. The chicken never sees the light of day; the only light they see is that which is artificial, and controlled, to control their cycles. When the chicken is ready, it is slaughtered (Without anaesthetic obviously), and voila, christmas dinner.

VEAL: A baby cow is born. Soon after (maybe 2 days), they are put into a small crate, and that is where they shall remain for the next 14 weeks. They are put into a small crate so that they can''t move and don't see light, to keep their meat white and soft. After 14 weeks, they are loaded onto a truck, taken to an abattoir, and butchered. Nice life!

I look forward to your next post

Galor

*Edited in attempt to fix quotes

Edited July 5, 2005 by BurnSide

[Walken]

Body post 2

I'll try not to be a criticising ass in future

There is nothing wrong with criticism, however I beleive I have fully explained why the information you were focusing that peice on was false. I don't blame you, at one time I too beleived Vegeterianism was the solution to world hunger and eating meat caused cancer - Those that push these myths can be very manipulative.

I'm going to explain the ethical side to vivisection; which, I'm sure Walken, as you told me earlier, you know about.

I do, in fact I have a miniture libary on the subject, some of which I may reccomend to you. I too am anti-Vivisection, however I do remind you and the judges that this debate is about eating meat, not animal experimentation, so I do hope you keep this arguement relavent to the subject.

And if you'd like some very good books on vivisection or vegeterianism as a whole, look up Vernon Coleman

And secondly, humans are

omnivores, they can live without meat

Yes, but it can be very unhealthy. And as omnivores, we really cannot live without meat. Nature built us as omnivores for a reason.

Eating meat requires that a life is ended...

Need I remind you that plants are living and breathing too? When you tuck in to a broccli stew we forget that the broccli was once alive. Of course we do. Broccli isn't cute and cuddly. Broccli doesn't look up at you with prettey eyes. It doesn't snuggle up to bed with you at night.

So we forget that its alive. But it very much is.

And being that you are not arguing for us to stop eating vegtables and fruits (and if you were I'd deem you to have severe emotional problems) the arguement is invalid.

That is unless you intend to explain the differences in the values of kitty life and cabbage life?

Eating meat requires that a life is ended another living, breathing creature with blood flowing though their veins to die

But other creatures are supposed to die, as are we, when our time comes, of course. You are failing to remember the Circle of life - Others die so that we might live, we die so that others might live.

Before mankind built it's city walls where do you think we lived? Caves, jungles, forests and plains. We shared the land with animals (where as now we just share our supermarkets with them) - For us to survive we were required to hunt and kill.

And whats changed? Sure, the computers are faster and the cars are shiny, but we are still required to hunt and kill to survive, and we still do.

but I personally think killing another living creature is wrong, even if it is necessary.

Then you best give those potatoes a ceremonial burial and set about your new life eating dust.

...But wait? Isn't that dead skin? So for you to eat dust, another life must end! (Even if that life does only exsist on a celluler leval)

But eating meat is barbaric

Come again? Now, before we continue...

We are not debating the ethics by which a chicken reaches KFC. The killing process and the lives of these animals before they are killed is completley barbaric, I'll admit, and that is why I am a vegeterian: To boycott the meat industry until that killing process is changed.

We are debating whether or not we should still be eating meat, regardless of the way that meat reaches our mouths. There is nothing barbaric about my killing a chicken to eat - It's nature and it's survival. There is something barbaric about throwing live chickens into boiling water to remove feathers or slitting their throats and draining them of blood whilst their still alive, but that has nothing to do with whether or not eating meat is ethical.

It's healthier

I beleive I've proved otherwise, no?

It's cheaper

It's really not. We have to eat more vegtables to live than we do meat if our diet was composed only of one of the two - Further more the price of vegeterian alternatives is through the roof. Heres a little home made research.

Price of Quorn slices (chicken alternative) at Sainsburys: £2.19

Price of chicken slices for sandwhichs at Sainsburys: £0.69 pence.

It's more humane.

Humane = Human like. Done in a human manner.

Eating meat is what we're supposed to do. We're built to do it. It is very much human-like. There is, therefore, nothing inhumane about it.

it's a very well known and proved fact that meat does damage your health.

...What in the world are you talking about? Did you not read my last post? Show me this proof then. Show me the proof that eating meat does damage to your health. Because I beleive in my last post I proved that this was a myth.

Are you trying to say Humans are born to kill?

Yes.

Well, yes, technically we are born to kill

People who sign up to the army in the first place didn't have to; I have no idea why anyone would want to sign u

A lot of the time they are conscripted against their will (drafted)

Wrong. If it was, would you or I still be alive after not eating meat? My point proved.

A healthy happy survival. I am an unhealthy person. I'd bet my house and cats on you being too.

According to my beliefs, God isn't real. And all the things that apparently happened, didn't. Uhuh, God came down to earth and ordered the Christians to eat a pig. This story was probably written by men, and isn't true. It's been moulded to fit their beliefs, if there was a God, he wouldn't come down and order some people to murder and eat the flesh of one of his creations. He would do the exact opposite.

Now you cannot say 'I don't beleive god exsists, but if there was a god he wouldn't want us to eat animals'.

In saying this you are moulding it to fit your own beleifs, which is the exact arguement you used to dismiss me saying that god did, and does, want us to eat meat.

I reccomend you re-think said arguement.

when vegetarianism becomes possible, all the great wise men were vegetarian, such as Gandhi.

...And Hitler, And Moussalini....

But let's try and keep religion out of this

Well you did bring it up; You cannot tell us that god would not want us eating meat then tell me not to bring religeon into it when I prove you wrong.

And if all of it was used to produce edible plants (such as grain) and fruit bearing tree's (apple, orange trees) AND vegetables, we would have more than enough to feed the world

...But it takes months (even years, in some cases) for these fruits to grow - I guess the world can just wait then, hmm?

Plus, you ignore the main point: Although there would be more grain, those that are starving in africa and asia still wouldn't be able to buy it. At the moment there is more than enougth to feed the world, but the third world can't afford it and the first world is obese. Now, if we did all convert to vegeterianism there would be less food, we'd still be obese and the third world would still starve.

While Americans can dash out at meat restaurants (and become obese), there are people in Africa living in complete poverty. Lets even it out shall we; no more inefficient meat, lots of grain and other stuff like that, distribute it, and hey presto, auf wiedersehn hunger and poverty!

You didn't read a word of it did you?

The price would not change. We'd remain obese and the third world would remain to poor to purchase the food. Nothing would change, with the exception of less food, of course.

It is NOT misleading to think that what livestock are fed on could be diverted to feed humans; I mean, why not? What's to say we couldn't?

Mainly...

*The food we use to feed animals is engineered and designed for them. They would not supply us with the vitamins or proteins we need.

*The sick fact is many animals are fed on, well, ex-animals. So we'd still be eating meat. Chickens are fed the parts of the chickens that don't go into KFC.

Well, if we want to keep out capitalist way of life and solve world hunger, the solution is mass vegetarianism.

But those that are hungry (africa) aren't going to suddenley be able to afford the food are they? Plus, they'll be less aid because we'd be producing less food.

The people who kill these animals deserve to lose their livelihood; as I shall explain later, and I'm sure you will agree with me, Walken

Because you are going to talk about the immorale process of killing in this country?

Please don't. Spare me the lecture and yourself the lost relavency marks. This debate is on the subject of whether or not man kind should still be eating meat, not whether or not the slaughter houses of the western world are ethical.

use the land to produce surplus of rice! More than enough to feed Asia!

Great idea! Though I heard that living on a staple diet of rice isn't so good for you....

In the long run, even increasing vegetarianism by 10% woudl provide enough room to cultivate enough food for everyone. Phew!

No, it really wouldn't.

To summerise all of what I have just said, these points ignore the fact that the buying power of the third world's citizens would not change.

Most wouldn't sell their land to developers; they would simply switch over.

I think there is a lot more profit in selling nine or ten feilds for five hundred thousand pounds or so than there is in organic farming. It is a lot less effort too. I know that if I lived in this post-meat world with a farm I'd be the first to sell.

The plant food count would INCREASE in a post-meat world; not the other way around.

No it wouldn't, because, as demonstrated, there would be a huge boom in the amount of farmers selling their land.

The food would supply would increase; more room for farming plants

But the vast majority of the land suitable for farming is already being put to good use. There would not be any more room for farming, they'd be less, what with the farmers selling their land.

I stick by my point; mass-vegetarianism will not worsen world hunger. It will make it better.

Clearly you have not read my post at all then

May I add innvista is a 'scientifically viable' site.

No it's not. The only source they provided for this news story was an R. Dumont, a man not even described as a doctor, whom, in that article, graphically accuses all white men as being cannibals, before telling us that by eating meat we kill children in Banglidesh.

Yes, Mr. R. Dumont is certainly a fellow I'd describe as scientifically viable.

Or is that viable for scientific testing?

Source: http://www.urban75.com/Mag/veggie.html

(not going to quote because it's too long)

Click and read

Although the information put fourth is partly true, it in no way counters the facts I put across.

Plus, both sites are incredibly bias and hardly what I'd call scientifically viable. One is a vegeterian news site, the others main headline is 'boycott the barsteds!'

Read what I've said above; scientifically viable statistics about vegetarianism

The statistics are bias half truths. Although they are put on a basic frame work of facts, they're painted a shade or two of green. Plus, they are just the same as what I already proved as a myth.

lots of junk food

And meat is the only thing in todays society classed as junk food, yes?

Vegetarians have half to three-quarters the risk of dying of heart disease compared to non-vegetarians.

And I already gave you facts that proved that this can be attributed to outside influences, not meat. Same goes for the cancer 'facts' you gave us.

I think I've proved that they do

You've actually got my in the corner here, Galor.

But look at it this way. Vicky the Veggie is a vegeterian. Because she is a vegeterian, she eats mainly salads, and rarely touches fries. Max the Meat eater loves fries and meat.

But Vicky eats nothing but Salad for a month, and Max eats nothing but fries. Max then has heart failure, because, needless to say, excessive eating of fries is unhealthy.

You could then use that logic to state; "There is a 0% chance of vegeterians suffering heart failure, compared to a 100% for meat eaters."

Do you see what I'm trying to say? These can easily be attributed to external influences. Nothing is to say that these are directly related to meat, hmmm?

The main reason why I am vegetarian, the gross and shocking amount of cruelty involved. I'm not really going to go into detail until my next post, but I'm sure you'll agree with me that this is horrific and terrible. What I am about to give you is a few biographies of some animals bred to be eaten

I don't think I need to tell you that this is irrelavent. This debate is about whether we should still be eating meat in todays society - It is regardless of how that meat reaches us.

That concludes my second main body post. Good luck in your third, Galor

[about]

Resignation

Sorry, but I regret I will have to resign from this debate for personal reasons. I can't seem to find the time anymore to write such long posts, and when I lost a post I'd been writing for ages because my computer screwed up half-way through I decided maybe it'd be best if I resigned. It'd taken me something like 1 1/2 hours to write it, and I couldn't get anymore time to write it. I admit though, this was one of the best debates I've ever had ; but our research was contradicting each other and posts were becoming tediously long. Again, sorry.

Btw, I've just noticed that I've only ever resigned from 2 debates; and in both I was versing you maybe your too good

Once again, sorry.

[Walken]

Then I gues it's an early Conclusion - No problem. It was a lot of fun, but I kind of figured you'd be resigning because it took you so long to reply.

Anyhow - It's fine. I hope to debate you again some day, I guess.

[about]

Maybe one day we'll finish a debate out of however many debates I've done (7 or 8) I've only completed 2

*goes off to debate suggestions thread to suggest some random debate ideas*