veganisim is a good life choice

in todays world, millions of people gourge on meat and expecially in america the human abuses his right to eat meat and engourges in the fact that man is at the top of the foodchain

Seeing as my opponent hasn't done so, I offer the following definitions on the topic at hand

Vegan: a vegetarian who omits all animal products from the diet.

"in today's world, millions of people gourge on meat and expecially in america the human abuses his right to eat meat"

Eating is not a privilege; it is an essential part of life. We cannot say that a human abuses his right to eat meat because eating is not a "right" it is a basic biological process(Feel free to offer more clarification).

"engourges in the fact that man is at the top of the foodchain"

By stating this, my opponent has agreed to the fact that man is at the top of the food chain. Therefore, in the natural setup of the food chain, man is and does eat the species under it.

Now on to my points....

1. While vegan-ism lowers the risk of some health problems, it raises the risk of others.

While vegan-ism is successful in lowering the risks of diabetes, heart disease, etc., it heightens the risks of other health problems such as malnutrition. Nutrients such as vitamin b12 are "only naturally occurring in animal cells and yeast or mold cells" (1). Vegan sources to this and other nutrients are scarce.

2. Vegan-ism is largely impractical
As a vegan, you most likely must rely on vitamins and supplements. Since a major premise of vegan-ism is pro-nature, shouldn't the negative agree that it is best to get vitamins and nutrients in nature's natural packaging. By not getting these essential nutrients, the vegan risks health problems. A vegan goes as far as to not wear silk or wool, not to eat eggs, milk, butter, yogurt, cheese, honey, refined sugar (found in most all baked goods), as well as meats. This diet and lifestyle in itself proves to be largely impractical in "today's society".

Sources

(1) http://www.starchefs.com...

I await your arguments =)

while your reasoning's are good some still are debatable considering that "Malnutrition" is not a likely factor. Many foods are available other than meat to proved protein and the nutrients against malnutrition, soy being just one of them, can replace meat that the vegan saves for the others, which will save many animals life's which humans greedfully take

*I would also like to remind my opponent that no new points of debate can be brought up in round 3 closing arguments, or they must be ignored by the voters.

" 'Malnutrition' is not a likely factor. Many foods are available other than meat to proved protein and the nutrients against malnutrition,"

The problem with this statement is malnutrition IS a likely factor. Malnutrition doesn't just include a lack of protein, but other nutrients as well.

"Adequate total nutrition includes the following nutrients: protein, energy (calories), vitamin A and carotene, vitamin D, vitamin E, vitamin K, thiamine, riboflavin, niacin, vitamin B6, pantothenic acid, biotin, folate, vitamin C, antioxidants, calcium, iron, zinc, selenium, magnesium, and iodine. " (1)

Vegans are also at risk of Osteoporosis, Rickets, Iron-deficiency anemia, Macrocytic anemia, and Emaciation or slowed growth.

That aside we haven't fully addressed the issue of the question at hand "veganism is a good life choice". Veganism is a good life choice for whom? Since the question doesn't specify, let's explore this further...

A simple google search on babies killed or suffering from severe malnutrition because of veganism yields 1,490 results. Babies, children, and the elderly following strict vegan diets are high risk of severe under nourishment and malnutrition. Vegans omit all forms of dairy and eggs, and it's fair to say that even if a vegan was to breast feed, the breast milk of a vegan mother lacks docosahexaenoic acid, or DHA, the omega-3 fat found in fatty fish. It is difficult to overstate the importance of DHA, vital as it is for eye and brain development. (2)(sorry at the moment i don't have the time to fully expand on this)

While veganism has health and environmental benefits, A strict vegan removing all traces of animal products from their diet can face an expensive, difficult, and impractical task. To answer the animal rights issue, moderate eating of meat which takes place in developing countries still allows countless animals to continue living and doesn't abuse their lives or raise them for slaughter. Human hunting of animals such as deer helps reduce overpopulation since in many areas of the United States there is a lack of natural predators. When hunting takes place moderately, it is often the weaker of the species killed. Which, in turn, helps cleanse the gene pool and allow stronger, healthier species to grow. (once again my apologies for not expanding as I would like or giving more facts)

(1)Malnutrition. (n.d.). Nutrition and Well-Being A to Z. Retrieved August 19, 2008, from Reference.com website: http://www.reference.com...

(2) http://www.babble.com...

Im not saying that some health promblems wont be a factor but the chances are slim to none considering there are dozens of other protein sourses plus if it ever came down that the world would end from global warming first or people like you would eat all the animals!!! good bye I WIN!!!! HAHAHAHA

Okay....
Seeing as my opponent hasn't refuted any of my arguments, and ended the debate in a childish manner I'll simply point out some never addressed arguments. Since these arguments were never addressed, we have to assume the aff agrees.

1. Eating meat is not a right
2. Vegan-ism is impractical
3. Malnutrition IS a likely factor if the diet isn't created appropriately.
4. WHO is veganism a life choice for???
5. Eating meat moderately answers the animal cruelty issue

"the world would end from global warming first"
I warned my opponent that any new points brought up in closing arguments have to be ignored....

"people like you would eat all the animals!!!"
Omnivores are not causing animal extinction. I'll simply leave it at that

Ummm...... I think the winner is somewhat obvious...
vote neg!