I didnt know where else to put this, and I felt the vegetarian forums would naturally be at least a little biased, so ill ask here. Im debating the meat eating side of meat eating verses vegetarianism. My opponent plans on discussing pretty much just the health benefits of vegetarianism, she will discuss a little bit about the ethics of vegetarianism as well. Im unsure of the stance i should take, or rather what specific points i should argue. I havent researched much yet, but im thinking it will be quite difficult to argue that meat eating is healthier than vegetarianism. Or perhaps i dont have to prove that it is better, but rather that it is not as bad as its cracked up to be? I dont know...she seemed to pick the one aspect of vegetarianism that is the most difficult to debate.
damn..that would be dificult to debate i admit being veg 20+ years i may be biosed, but honnestly i'm trying to think of points that you could use to debate meat being good or at least not so bad, and i honnesstly cant think of 1 thing..except in the case of people living in artic areas where theres no possibility of living veggy and meats the only way to survive.. other then that, i think your gonna have a really hard time winning this 1 hmmm maybe you could try debating from an economic standpoint? revenues lost/cost of conversion although even with that argumant i have a feeling you may find the numbers stack up in her favor
How about filling the void of predators in the food chain caused by human overpopulation. Something has to kill and eat the mangy bastards or they'll all die. ei; deer and wolf population in any rural part of North America.
I was a vegetarian when I was younger, and I've gone back to being one a couple of years ago. My reasons for doing so are basically ethical/religious/humanitarian in nature, but there are also definite health benefits in doing this. People in Third World countries where the income is low and meat consumption is also low have a small amount of cardiovascular disease (heart attcks, strokes, etc) and cancer. When their income goes up, their meat consumption goes up with it, and their rates of cardiovascular disease and cancer skyrocket. This is because, for one reason, the amount of fat and cholesterol they are consuming is entirely too high, and the primarily vegetarian diet they were previously eating was much healthier. The only real downside healthwise to vegetarianism is that some vegetarians don't consume enough protein-this is particularly true of vegans. I make sure that my diet is balanced so that I get enough proein-if I don't, I simply don't have enough energy. That's a simple problem to solve-you just have to put a little effort into getting the right kinds of foods in your diet. It's going to be really pretty hard arguing the health benefits of being a meat eater, because, for the most part, there really aren't any.
yeah, thats why im going to argue mainly from a convenience standpoint. With a portion of meat you get the basic vitamins and proteins you need, whereas with a vegetarian diet you may need to take supplements. But ive also read that a diet which limits meat consumption and incorporates vegetables and fruits is just as healthy as a vegetarian diet. So from there, i guess i would have to argue the difficulty of completely eliminating our meat industry, which would be near impossible.
Well, there aren't any supplements that would add protien to a vegetarian diet-you have to get that by eating eggs, cheese, tofu, etc. It's true that small amounts of meat added to a diet can be fairly healthy (I eat fish sometimes to get protein, but I eat no meat-most people wouldn't consider me a strict vegetarian). However, the average Westerner eats far too much meat, to the detriment of their health. I've never seen hardly anybody that actually limits their meat intake. Meat is a basic part of just about every American meal.
