Check out the Tournament Ladder

avatar
29 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • 2 years ago

    @liamm @citizenthom
    Your confirmed judge for this round is @tara_kade

    • 2 years ago
    • 2 years ago

      @liamm Congrats for advancing to the next round expected to start this weekend!

      @citizenthom Hard luck on this one! November's tournament starting soon: https://www.qallout.com/tournament

      • 2 years ago

        loving the 'science' jabs and sweater reference

        • 2 years ago

          "Bro, you don't have to refrigerate grains"
          Best bumper sticker for a grains shipping truck.

        • 2 years ago

          Since I was specifically called a "liar" on the effects of soybean production (ramped up to support Western vegan and vegetarian diets but more crucial for the former):

          http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/agriculture/soy/impacts/habitat_conversion/

          "In Brazil, soybean cultivation displaces 11 agricultural workers for each one who finds employment in the sector. In the 1970s, soybean production displaced 2.5 million people in Paraná state and 0.3 million in Rio Grande do Sul.

          Many of these people moved to the Amazon where they cleared pristine forests (Fearnside 2000). More recently, expansion in the Cerrado hasn’t led to the displacement of many people because the area wasn’t widely inhabited.
          At high risk – savannahs and cerrados

          In Brazil the savannahs and cerrados are most at risk. These areas have biodiversity that rivals equivalent areas of Amazonian forests, but only 1.5% of such lands are in federal reserves. Unfortunately, they can be easily converted into vast expanses of soybean fields.

          This damages the land hugely. Agrochemicals are needed for soybeans to be financially viable. The soils often become so poor that within two years, virtually all nutrients have to come from lime and fertilizers. The soil ends up stripped of virtually all fertility and only serves to hold up the plants."

          • 2 years ago

            http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/agriculture/soy/impacts/climatechange/

            “One example is the Cerrado, which has already lost half its native vegetation to soybean plantations. The Cerrado is globally important because of the large stock of carbon it stores in its vegetation and soil. . . . . In the Cerrado, conversion to soybean plantations has released the equivalent of more than half UK’s the total emissions of carbon dioxide emissions for 2009, according to data from the Brazilian government.”


            “Initially, soybeans can be cultivated without fertilizer or lime applications. But soil soon needs these to be able to nourish its crop – and they can damage the environment even further. Eventually, even that’s not enough, and land has to be retired. In the case of Bolivia, by the late 1990s more than 100,000 hectares of former soybean lands were abandoned to cattle pasture because the soil was exhausted.”

          • 2 years ago

            @citizenthom Yes, and you need to be comparative. That land destruction is less bad than the land destruction of cows who have to use it too. Debates are not about pointing to harms but comparing harms.

          • 2 years ago

            @liamm This was covered vis a vis the competing metrics for "harm." Your point of reference was water; mine was soil quality and erosion thereof.

          • 2 years ago

            @citizenthom Yes, but when you have meat, you need to grow the cattle and grow the GRAINS ASWELL to feed to cattle. You get the harm - TWICE. See my second speech for the specifics.

          • 2 years ago

            @liamm I should have challenged you on what's going to happen to the cattle (whose comfort became a righteous moral imperative for you during this debate) when we STOP GROWING THE GRAINS TO FEED THEM. :)

          • 2 years ago

            @citizenthom Potentially, but thats not an argument you made.

            Although I think that's a legitimate area of inquiry. I think the likely response is that as I said in speech 1, this is phased in over 15-20 years so that would give enough time for the population to decrease.

          • 2 years ago

            @liamm I didn't make it because that's not a relevant argument. Cows don't have countries. They're not among the decision-makers here nor would they be among the beings whose benefit would be relevant.

          • 2 years ago

            @citizenthom right but it is a rebuttal to one of my three arguments, the moral one... as you identitified in that first comment. I'm confused :P

        • 2 years ago

          I've heard some of these arguments before... @ellbar

        • 2 years ago

          @liamm I'm 10 minutes in and the number of myths and unsubstantiated speculations on the con side is making my head explode.

          'Vegans have lower testosterone' - Incorrect, they are actually consistently found to have higher testosterone: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2374537/pdf/83-6691152a.pdf

          'Canines tho' - Ever seen a Gorilla's canines? Herbivores.

          'Skin pigmentation' - Literally no idea what that comment was about, maybe vitamin D absorption?

          'Amazon deforestation is for Soy, darn those pesky vegans' - This one made me want to cry it's so perfect; Upwards of 90% of Amazon deforestation is due to Animal Agriculture,
          http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/758171468768828889/pdf/277150PAPER0wbwp0no1022.pdf
          and 70-80% of soy production worldwide is fed directly to livestock, with only 6% being converted to human food and the rest being converted to oil.

          I'll try to watch the rest without hanging myself (hemp rope of course ;) )

          • 2 years ago

            'B12 tho' - I don't know how many times this has to be said, but no animal produces vitamin B12. It is produced by bacteria. In the past this was easily attained by eating unwashed foods, drinking untreated water, etc. It is certainly possible to recycle B12 through the corpses of other animals, although highly inefficient. Of course, now that upwards of 90% of all animal products are produced through factory farming, the animals you eat are not getting any B12 either, due to their lack of contact with the outside world. Due to this, animals are supplemented with artificial vitamin B12 directly.
            I hope you understand, whether you eat animal products or just take a supplement yourself, you're still taking a B12 supplement. I'd prefer to take mine directly.

          • 2 years ago

            "You've made this argument about hunter-gatherer societies with absolutely no evidence whatsoever." Immediately goes on to make several declarative statements about populations of vegans with no supporting evidence provided.

          • 2 years ago

            @ellbar Aha, I wish I had known these things mid-debate, I had to rely on intutitions on them and more tangible things e.g. water production. Pity the fool who comes up against you on this topic (or similar) in future :P

          • 2 years ago

            @liamm Haha hindsight is 20/20, you did a pretty good job :) He kept referring to fringe health issues, I think something that could have strengthened your argument significantly would have been to take a counter-stance on health with regards to the western world's leading killer - heart disease. It's caused almost solely by the consumption of animal products and the reversal of heart disease, as shown possible on a whole food, plant-based diet, would hugely outweigh any obscure examples of health complications on a vegan diet.

            I was laughing when you mentioned speciesism being just another form of racism, seemed familiar :P

            Overall though you comfortably won this debate, in my opinion, good luck in the next round! Be sure to tag me in the comments so I don't miss it

          • 2 years ago

            @ellbar Thanks!

            I did think about the heart disease w.r.t. meat consumption - the reason I didn't say it is the immediate response to that is just to identify that is a problem of over consumption, not consumption itself. So while a country going vegan does stop over consumption, so could many other policies (e.g. restricted menus in school canteens, or sin-taxes on fatty-meat foods) which mean that benefit is not distinct; I thought the time investment of aruging the effectiveness of either of those policies would be too high in such a low-time format.

            Although, re:speicisism, sometimes I have to make arguments I dont believe ;)

            I'll def keep you apprised! Hope to see you in the november comp!

        • 2 years ago

          That was crazy