@@olliefoxx7165 I agree, although I think there was some sort of language barrier affecting the efficiency of his speech. Sounds like he isn't too fluent in English (which is quite surprising given that he is studying at Oxford's).
@@samb7652 They did bring up the good point that when you grow produce you have to kill off the entire ecosystem of bugs and vermin. Personally I like to use the point where happy animals taste better and are more tender.
@@vagabondwastrel2361 Try home-slaughtered animals rather than ones taken to an abbatoir. The issue is that you can't do this (in the UK) unless it's your own animals. It's illegal to even serve home-slaughtered meat to anyone outside of your direct family (iirc, who live in the same house - maybe wrong there). Taking animals to slaughter stresses them with the travel, with the new environment, with the production line, so the meat is full of cortisol before it's legal to sell to consumers. I "get it" that this ensures that meat is produced in hygienic circumstances. Given the choice though, I'd take take meat from small-scale raised & home slaughtered animals any day.
I grew up around cattle ranching in Texas and later was lucky enough to receive a full scholarship for postgraduate studies at Oxford (Exeter College). When I was young, about thirteen, my cousin and I raised a calf for a 4 H project. The day we drove that beautiful creature to be tuned into slaughtered flesh was one of the worst in my life. I became a vegetarian soon after that traumatic experience. I am now a vegan and have been for a good long time now. I have to say honestly that Mikhaila's insensitive narcissism and arrogant privilege were stomach churning. I would suggest that she slaughter what she is eats, but I fear she might do so with a sense of glee. This remind me of the line in Yeats' poem _The Second Coming_ "The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity." I am aware that the uncritical acolytes of the Peterson cult will hate what I've said because they don't want to be bothered with the truth of the pain from the real world of ranching. Apologies if the truth made you uncomfortable.
@@2bsirius So curing your arthritis, autoimmune conditions and depression is deemed narcissistic and a privilege? You need to get a sense of perspective. It's a dog eat cow world out there....
Haha exactly! I remember growing up and realizing sadly that generally the people with the biggest voices in our society are those who aren't doing anything. I saw so many wise people in the jobs I worked who were almost oblivious to the outside world because they were to busy with work family and other things that make a healthy stable life. They usually had the most amazing healthy world views too and yet too busy to get them out there
I was sorely disappointed by this entire debate. Very shallow points made all around, the kinds of points you can find on hundreds of RUclips videos. I was hoping for some deeper, more philosophically grounded ideas.
I believe there were some good points made by that speaker for eating meat, and this "debate" was clearly designed for the motion to carry. Wouldn't want to put out information that might sway someone's opinion against the preprogrammed narrative.
@@einar87 It's a fairy tale. That's why no one brings it up except people that don't know anything about it. It's indefensible in an actual debate where it falls apart under the slightest scrutiny. You have to waste 10 calories to get 1 back from meat. You need 3 acres for every 1 acre to raise livestock vs plants directly. There's no way around this. It's an inherently inefficient and inhumane process.
@@rasputozen The problem with the energy/acreage argument is that it doesn’t pass the economics test. Meat has more energy in it per unit volume. It is a better source to get energy from as a consumer. Any imbalance from acreage or energy that goes into it is reflected into the cost to produce and thus purchase the meat. So from economics, meat is more expensive due to the higher production cost. That is a fact. It’s cost per unit energy is not an issue. We do not have an issue feeding people with acreage or energy. That is A BS argument. Places in the world with massive starvation have more than enough resources. It is typically horrible governments that cause food and other resources like energy not to be distributed. Now the issue we have in the US (especially) is a consumption issue that is worsened by a starch-filled bad food pyramid created from bad science, a social environment that pushes an unhealthy body image as “healthy”, food waste caused by government regulations pushed by big businesses (requiring day-old, but good food to be thrown away to prevent “competition”), and sugar products being pushed like drugs. If you address any one of those issues even slightly, you would reduce the environmental impact more significantly than cutting meat. Sugar and calorie rich food can be vegan. I eat some vegan products. I make cauliflower “chicken” kung pow. And you can absolutely make those products just as bad for the environment.
I feel like I could have given a better speech right now and I haven’t done any research. How do they choose these people? Mikhaila was clearly the only one in her right mind that night.
She gave the details of the effects she experienced on her diet. Other than a few people with unusual dietary requirements, there are no good arguments for continuing animal agriculture as we know it.
@@katethegreat4918 If you don't know the facts, the claims made by the spokespeople advocating for the proposition may have sounded wacky. If you doubt any of their claims, specify which ones in this thread and I might be able to support them with evidence from credible sources.
@@katethegreat4918 What is your current position on the proposition "Should society finally move beyond meat?" Keep in mind that the proposition is not that eating meat should be outlawed (necessarily) but that the harm done by it (the environment for example) justifies moving past it, kind of like how the US government has discouraged smoking tobacco. It didn't outlaw it, but it has taken steps to discourage it due to the harm it causes. Some people still smoke, but it isn't the norm for adults that it used to be.
The anti meat side was worse. Much worse, and filled with nothing but ma’ feminism and patriarchy and white supremacy other BS. Could it have been better, sure. But beating a vegan doesn’t require much effort.
@@FilmFlam-8008 Completely agree. But I would like to see our side squash more of the Vegans’ BS claims like meat being the biggest contributor to GW etc and especially all the claims of that crazy lady at the end…
It's crazy to think that these speakers are "scholars". These institutions are a joke nowadays and their viewpoints on things no longer hold weight in the real world.
@@Ber9200 not trying to be an asshole, it was just my observation after watching numerous debates from institutions such as these. They aren't what the used to be. To many feelings not enough facts.
@@codeman135791 I just don’t see why you would take the underwhelming experience of one debate and extrapolate that to make a claim about “these institutions”. (Presumably universities?)
When, your argument, is, seperated, by, breaks, and pauses, it breaks, the attention, of the audience, obfuscating, the erroneous claims. And, that, is how, you make, an argument, more interesting to, your own, side of, the aisle. Thank you.
@@GiriColnat 6/8 was great. It condensed the motion down into a clear question of ethics without resorting to weak arguments about culture and tradition, unverifiable statistics, or invoking psalms.
So on the side of the opposition we have: Mikhaila - who was one of two who seemed to actually do research and prepare for their speech (kudos) Peter - the other of the two who actually seemed well read and prepared but was incredibly irresponsible for accepting a position on the opposition then arguing for the proposition and Manuel - Someone who seems to have forgotten he was even in a debate, showed up and put together an argument mid event (you can literally see him writing it while sitting there), of which is on par with what could be expected from a grade schooler. The proposition had a literal clown so i guess it wasn't much better. I mean she had the audience unironically laughing AT her at such an event. Is this really oxford? I'm feeling second hand embarrassment over here.
Is there no discussion or questions allowed in this debate? If not, is it even a debate??? They’re just presenting their views without being questioned. I find it rather disappointing. Hopefully they upload the part wherethey rebut each other’s positions and take questions.
The speaker has the option to accept or deny question, "points of order". There are 4 arguing for and 4 against the proposal. So there are 7 other videos for the whole debate.
@@richarddrapeau7599 I mean yeah I watched all the other videos and nobody was allowed to neither ask questions nor rebut an argument. I'm saying the structure of this was more of a presentation rather than a debate. I did not like it as a debate, but some of the points were Interesting and one was very much out there for sure haha
@@gustavotorres5304 they were obviously allowed to rebut arguments, and they could have even asked questions, but it's not a harvard style debate, which perhaps you're used to. Here there isn't banter, so you can pose questions and you can address things that have been said, but it's not a back and forth. ;-) for the style you're talking about, check out the soho forum debates. :-)
The analogy to marrying whoever you want would only make sense if we lived in a society where people could marry whoever they want without asking their partner of choice for concent. In a liberal society, you cannot marry anyone who doesn’t concent. It would be putting your own desire to be with this person over their right to not being forced into a marriage with someone they don’t want to. In the same manner we do not eat animals because it is unethical to put our own desire for the temporary pleasure we receive from eating the animal over their right of living unharmed.
It did seem structured to favour the vegan argument. 4 speakers vs 3, and one of the three clearly supporting the vegan argument preferentially and only half heartedly making any arguments for meat consumption.
Im surprise that only two people on one side of the debate were invited, specially when the vegan side had a lady that put together sexism/racism in the same place with "eating meat" it made it look not good
If our ancestors weren't hunters and gatherers we would not exist today there would be no human beings we would've went to the wayside with the dinosaurs
That's not an argument for how we should act in 2022. I am a meat eater and feel no guilt whatsoever about it, I'm only pointing out that you're not making a good argument, IMO.
Weston A Price should be central to this debate. He noted that indigenous people including European had good /strait teeth, wide jaw and good bone structure prior to Western diets being introduced.
@@Mrm1985100 First line of his wikipedia page :"Weston Andrew Valleau Price (September 6, 1870 - January 23, 1948) was a Canadian dentist known primarily for his theories on the relationship between nutrition, dental health, and physical health"
This debate was set up terribly. Was the debate over whole foods, vegan, vegetarianism, or banning meat consumption? the opposing side was hamstrung with terrible speakers.. And if you want to ban meat eatting, by way of argue against putting things in cages and force feeding unnatural things... but then that would mean putting me in a cage and not allowing me to eat meat... allow me the same rights you afford bears.. Arguing against ever eating meat is as absurd as arguing against ever eating grains... and forcing that by way of legislation.. a way to war.
So in part 2 it was mentioned that crop production kills many many small animals.... interesting. I suppose spraying wheat barley potatoes with a insecticide will.have a knock on effect including our beloved bees.
and since many of those crops are fed to livestock, switching to a plant based diet would not only prevent the death of livestock but a large part of the "many many small animals" as well.
If you stop meat consumption you have to increase plant growing. Growing plants is very soil intensive. It's also involves lots of chemicals insecticides, pesticides, fungicides also the famous round up. It's not as simple as saying let's stop meat consumption. Land has to be ploughed, ploughing land breaks down the soil structure. Grasslands restore soil structure and add back the nutrients lost due to growing crops. Is warm climates growing plants leads to desertification of the soil. Have you ever heard of the dust bowl from the 1920s? The soil blew away and sand storms in the US. The world needs balance not monocultures. Having massive plantations of crops and fruit is very bad for the planet. The world needs diversity and grasslands create diversity.
@@Washpenrebel No you don't. You can always tell when someone is trying to act like they know what they're talking about on a subject when they have no clue. If you knew the details, you'd know that a vegan world would grow less crops than we currently are. It's counterintuitive, which is how I know you are ignorant on the subject at hand.
There is a place where opposition applauds an argument? I'm new to this, and it blows my little mind. I will be watching many more of these debates, and hopefully, I will ACTUALLY LEARN SOMETHING!
Why do these people speak of different cultures as if they're 12 year olds who don't have minds of their own. The idea that it would be wrong to challenge the practices of another culture based on sensitivity alone is idiotic. All that matters is whether or not you have a logically rational argument.
@@Ber9200 I'm a moral subjectivist so the argument relies on *if* the person cares about the rights of human beings. Other than that it's a simple consistency test. What is the morally substantive difference between humans and animals that means its acceptable to kill animals for food, but not humans?
@@Ber9200 How is it not an answer? In my first comment I was speaking generally. I'm providing you a means of getting to a logical conclusion on your position and you're dismissing it?
Why is no one even addressing the utter lunacy that is an ancient, elitist and once respected institution is hosting a forum debating what people should be allowed to eat. How far we have fallen.
Lisa's husband, Andy here. It isn't a liberal agenda. It is a left-wing agenda. Liberalism is about freedom and choice.👍By the way, meat eating is practiced by many races and both genders around the world. I agree that farming ethics could be better but that can be labelled to plant food as well. 👍
Different things affect different people at different times in their lives. Some people should be vegans for their health and others should eat meat. You do you and I’ll do me.
@@keeparguing611 of course he wouldn’t. But animals are not humans. Humans have rights, animals do not. Killing a human is murder, killing an animal is not.
Man was a little nervous, but actually had a good defense. Just because he wasn't playing in on peoples emotions and had to tackle nonsensical arguments by the other side some people think he actually did a bad job.
Well, I stick to it. If it comes push to shove, that such a discussion is held on a societal scale I'll vote no. If it will be forbidden against the majorities will (as is to be expected if this ever will turn out) I will start hunting no matter the consequences! I will eat meat, my diet is becoming more and more carnivorous in nature and I will not have anyone force me to switch to hyper processed foods because of their watery moral superiority complexes. And nothing else is this discussion. It's morality over everything health, morality over choice. My body, my choice, I decide what to put in it!
I'm vegan and I hardly eat any processed foods. I eat WFPB which is whole grains, beans, vegetables and fruit; all foods our ancestors have been eating since the dawn of time.
Animals body, animals choice? Also vegans don´t advocate for ban of meat. Vegans advocate for gradual societal change and a change in our attitude towards eating animal products etc.
You believe your choices are yours? They are made on the basis of the evidence available to you ... I might humbly suggest expanding your evidence base and even then know that your sense of free will is only a sense ...
The ethical issues against killing animals for consumption is unnatural, how do vegans deal with the fact that nature is an eternal death cycle, with excruciating pain? We humans just gotten more efficient at it. However, it increases the level of suffering to the animal, something that should be addressed.
Death for animals in Nature is rarely ever swift, in fact there are a number of animals that eat other animals alive while they are screaming in agony. Chimpanzees eat small monkeys alive ripping them limb from limb totally oblivious to their suffering. In modern times when humans kill animals directly for food it is instantaneous unless a mistake was made. Where humans cause the most suffering to animals is in agriculture were millions of ton's poison are used every year to kill "pest animals": rodents, rabbits, birds, dear, etc.
The argument isn't that killing animals is unnatural, rather that it is unethical. What is natural is not necessarily ethical, as there are many behaviours found in the natural that we as human beings in most societies generally find immoral, such as rape, cannibalism, murder etc. This is especially the case in societies where we no longer need to resort to such behaviour to defend ourselves and to survive. The ethical argument is that wealthy societies don't need animal products to live healthily, meaning that the suffering caused to animals by killing and using them is unnecessary and thus unethical.
Superb! It gave three women the opportunity to either talk about themselves or evangelise for feminism or critical race theory. I haven't laughed watching a "debate" in years.
some hopefully as construcitive perceived criticism. he really overacts his gesticulation. (especialy in the beginning) toning it down a little, would make his presentation more convincing and enjoyable
Oxford Union debates are a lot like TED Talks, at one time they used to have high standards. These days it is just a free for all of inane ideological nonsense. I note that 2 of 8 is not posted, I can only imagine that was the one speaker with some compelling argument for eating meat, wouldn't want anyone to see that would we. Out of the 7 speakers shown, not a one presented a compelling rational argument, and most were an outright embarrassment. This issue has been debated ad nauseum for years and we all know both sides quite well by now, the vast majority choose meat.
@@_Oz_ no, because most people can't relate to her. Most of us didn't have the crazy illnesses like she and her family have gone through. Why the heck should we put animals through suffering because it helped MP and her family? A good debate would have clearly laid out the strongest points on both sides and proceeded to challenge them. Sadly no one wants to do that these days, even at so-called prestigious institutions so here we are bitching in the comments section instead.
@@Muslimah1987 I identify with her. Thousands of others identify with her. Just look at the size of her audience. Just look at the numbers of people that belong to the World Carnivore Tribe on FB. Carnivore communities are growing. Meat matters.
@@ericmichel3857 I'd say the research she remarked on at the end of her time was pretty compelling, knowing a number of people who suffer from diabetes myself.
It was a weak closer... but yeah, I think if he was on earlier and there was more back and forth, this would of been a really good contribution. Hardly his fault. Didn't really feel like the kind of debates that we were spoiled with 10 years ago.
All debate turns were good and well written, except for one. This debate lacked the issue of human nutrition. What is actually a good diet for human consumption. Obviously one reason is that we don't really know yet what is the actual healthy diet for humans. One of the few things we know, healthy diet does not have processed foods in it and if we would go full vegan, we would be consuming much more ultra-proceseed foods.
Any diet when u quit sugar refined carbs and process foods will be healthier. However that doesn’t equate to u can’t be healthy without eating any animals You can’t be healthy being vegan? Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (formerly known as American Dietetic Association) “It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes.” Dietitians of Canada “A healthy vegan diet can meet all your nutrient needs at any stage of life including when you are pregnant, breastfeeding or for older adults.” The British National Health Service “With good planning and an understanding of what makes up a healthy, balanced vegan diet, you can get all the nutrients your body needs.” The British Nutrition Foundation “A well-planned, balanced vegetarian or vegan diet can be nutritionally adequate ... Studies of UK vegetarian and vegan children have revealed that their growth and development are within the normal range.” The Dietitians Association of Australia “Vegan diets are a type of vegetarian diet, where only plant-based foods are eaten. With good planning, those following a vegan diet can cover all their nutrient bases. The United States Department of Agriculture “Vegetarian diets (see context) can meet all the recommendations for nutrients. The key is to consume a variety of foods and the right amount of foods to meet your calorie needs. Follow the food group recommendations for your age, sex, and activity level to get the right amount of food and the variety of foods needed for nutrient adequacy. Nutrients that vegetarians may need to focus on include protein, iron, calcium, zinc, and vitamin B12.” The National Health and Medical Research Council “Appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthy and nutritionally adequate. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the lifecycle. Those following a strict vegetarian or vegan diet can meet nutrient requirements as long as energy needs are met and an appropriate variety of plant foods are eaten throughout the day” The Mayo Clinic “A well-planned vegetarian diet (see context) can meet the needs of people of all ages, including children, teenagers, and pregnant or breastfeeding women. The key is to be aware of your nutritional needs so that you plan a diet that meets them.” The Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada “Vegetarian diets can provide all the nutrients you need at any age, as well as some additional health benefits.” Harvard Medical School “Traditionally, research into vegetarianism focused mainly on potential nutritional deficiencies, but in recent years, the pendulum has swung the other way, and studies are confirming the health benefits of meat-free eating. Nowadays, plant-based eating is recognized as not only nutritionally sufficient but also as a way to reduce the risk for many chronic illnesses.” British Dietetic Association “Well planned vegetarian diets (see context) can be nutritious and healthy. They are associated with lower risks of heart disease, high blood pressure, Type 2 diabetes, obesity, certain cancers and lower cholesterol levels. This could be because such diets are lower in saturated fat, contain fewer calories and more fiber and phytonutrients/phytochemicals (these can have protective properties) than non-vegetarian diets. (...) Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of life and have many benefits.” Kaiser Permanente Kaiser Permanente, the largest health maintenance organisation in the United States with 12.2 million health plan members, 217,415 employees, 22,914 physicians, 59,127 nurses, 39 medical centers, and 690 medical facilities recommends that people follow a plant-based diet that "does not include animal products, such as meat, poultry, fish, dairy, and eggs."
@@zachraines5826 its because who ever made set this up stacked the deck. 6 speakers for and 2 against? What the fuck they cheated and it was almost a tie.
@@veganix6757 First, not needless because people need to eat. Second, Because of evolutionary biology. We need meat for proper growth and sustainability. Things like vitamin B12. What do you feed dogs or cats? Dry dog or cat food? Do you know what is actually in it? Do you think just because it is dry it is made from plants? Should no one have a pet because animals are slaughtered for them? Should zoos not exist because animals are needed to feed the predators and omnivores? Third, plants scream when cut and killed. Just because you can’t hear it doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Basically, you are saying it is OK to cut off and eat the leg of a paralyzed person because you can’t see them in pain. Sorry, you can’t live without killing. You can argue for humane farms, sure. People will easily agree with that. But arguing for no meat because unnecessary killing is logically silly.
Not a good speech. 1. Very heavy handed on the culture war element, involving the ubiquitous ad hominem attacks instead of facts and statistics. Most of what comes across here is "don't tell me how to live" and "the other side is hypocritical" 2. One too many statements of opinion as fact, without supporting them in any way. The facts that did finally get presented, were not well delivered... 3. A lot of un-natural pausing, self-interrupting, repeating, stuttering, and other nervous fumbling with words. Two-star delivery at best - given the previous speaker, I can half understand why, but to let this damage your own argument still shows a lack of maturity and level of incompetence on your own part. 4. An overly emotional, and accusatory tone throughout. Again half understandable given the previous speakers remarks. Mikhaila's speech was 1000% better in every way.
I solved this question with just one comment. A vegan friend asked me, if the government stopped you hunters/meat eaters couldn't eat meat anymore. What would do? I said easy, we'll start hunting and eating vegans. When they're all gone no problem.
Animals in the wild rip each other to shreds many billions of times per day. Many are eaten alive. Life lives by eating life. In the end, we will all be eaten by something. Try to reduce suffering, and learn to accept life as temporary and you will find peace.
...sorry ..my cell posted this before it was finished.. Apart from the nutritional benefits of red meats especially , the crucial part these ruminent animals play in the sustainability of our soils , our ranges and woodlands is absolutely essential to the health of the land and it's ability to provide food , shelter and habitat for all the wildlife that presently call it home, as well as continuing to provide food for the 98% of the population who have chosen to live in cities and towns and villages where most creatures are domestic pets and also require feeding a nutritious diet. If we continue to farm only grains and vegetables and fruits on our arable lands , ..harvest the produce and remove it to be consumed by people in cities and by their vehicles in the farm of ethanol, and ONLY .commercial fertilizers are used to grow future crops, then the nutritional value of those crops becomes depleted ..as it already has is most farm lands that do not have access anymore to the rich manures that mixed farms , dairies, and livestock operations have access to. Millions of bison used to roam across Canada's plains , rotational grazing our amazing prairies ,foothills,valleys and range lands...same scenario south of us in the USA.. Now 130 plus years later , those big ruminants have mostly been replaced with our herds of cows ..which CAN, and sometime ARE still being bred back to bison bulls..(These offspring are called beefalo as they are the same species) . Not ONE of Oxfords debaters presented the case for the sustainability of the SOIL.. The value of natural recycling of the forage plants and shrubs these animals graze on to continue the cycle TODAY' RANCHERS , me and my family included, provide TONS of essential minerals in a palatable form , in feeders placed strategically on our rangelands for cattle AND other wild animals to supplement any that may be missing in their diet in those areas . This overcomes their need to travel MILES to natural "mineral licks" that served the wild bison for thousands of years as they roamed the prairies . Now considering that 80% of all that a Ruminant ( cow , bison ,sheep,goat ) eats , is excreted and left in powerfully nutritious patties or small balls, including vital seeds which have passed still viable, through their gut, protected and provided with a safe growing environment AND perfect nutrient and mulch balance .. not to be touched or eaten for 2 years at least .. thereby ensuring their survival and sustainability .. The process is ancient and beautiful and absolutely :VITAL to the survival of ALL the life on this planet . North America , South America, Africa , China ,Russia...wherever on this planet that there are soils that grow plants and trees, there are animals and birds that EAT them AND provide the necessary recycling component through their bodies .. Take that away.. and the land suffocated and dies and becomes a desert or wasteland . That has been proven over and over . Nature provides ..BUT she xan be CRUEL..( ever seen a wolf take down a cow moose while she is calving? I HAVE AND IT WAS BRUTAL..) but IT IS all part of nature. The wolves prey on our calves too..just as they did on the bison calves . That's why we still ride horses in the west .. We try to keep a healthy balance since we share these ranges with all the species that live here . All we ranchers ask of you people, is that you find out the TRUTH , take the time to research these statements coming from well meaning but ill-informed activists , and consider the long term harm they are proposing for this planet . We are trying our best to keep you all fed with the most completely sustaining diet of wholesome red meats while protecting the precious lands still left safe from traffic and pavement for now at least
I use to enjoy these debates but this one was terribly done. None of the speakers except the Peterson woman, seemed to know their topic or based their topic on actual research or science. If Oxford use to be a bastion of Western thought it no longer is today. The arguments were for the most part emotional based and political babble. RUclips has far better debates on this topic. This is a sad pathetic performance by both sides and there are no winners.
@@tgyul the vague aspect of the proposition (like many) was just a headline. The content of the proposition (or at least the arguments made for it) were, for the most part, far from vague.
@@stuffandnonsense8528 well, I might not be seeing the whole wording then? I only read "should society finally move beyond meat?" - And the vote is binary. I find that "finally" and "beyond" can be meant in many different ways. Well, even "society" is vague. Personally, I'd support the general direction, but oppose anything that can be meant in an extreme sense.
@@tgyul This debate was set up terribly. Was the debate over whole foods, vegan, vegetarianism, or banning meat consumption? the opposing side was hamstrung with terrible speakers.. And if you want to ban meat eatting, by way of argue against putting things in cages and force feeding unnatural things... but then that would mean putting me in a cage and not allowing me to eat meat... allow me the same rights you afford bears.. Arguing against ever eating meat is as absurd as arguing against ever eating grains... and forcing that by way of legislation.. a way to war.
It's funny to take the victim position and talk about how shamed you are as a meat eater, when i'm pretty sure an insanely small percentage of people are non-meat eaters
People without strong arguments use the victim position to get sympathy from other people. He is trying to make vegans look bad. I think it can also be a form of self-doubt.
I would have liked to hear. at the end of this speech... "With care and Humane treatment of Animals .... Better ways to not cause fear and horrific situations ... and continue eating meat". But sadly he did not and ignored the plight of animals in his argument, which kinda lost my respect. But as they say, People will do what they always have done blindly until it's to late.... so let it all continue and time will tell. No need for further debate. But for those of us who see something different, we WILL make a difference and reduce suffering and no one can stop us.. since we all have the right to do what we all want to in life. So thanks to this debate for reaffirming my ideals and encouraging me to achieve what I want to achieve to help other species through my own actions. Which at the end of the day is all that matters.
What was the ethical argument? That plant foods would increase bad farming? Or that it was a kind of cultural imperialism? Or both? Neither of these work. The farming is an empirical point. Even 'grass fed' meat is much more demanding of land, calories per meter squared are far lower so the damage is ultimately greater especially if like is compared with like (worst meat with worst plant, best meat with best plant). The imperialist argument was just too vague. The cultural argument can certainly work, but we don't take that as a persuasive stance when it comes to other unethical culturally important activities (countless cultures have been based on the subjugation of women, we do not accept that as a good reason to allow such cultures to continue).
@@stuffandnonsense8528 The Naturalistic Fallacy is a Fallacy in it of itself. The only thing Nature dictates is survival, and meat eating not only allowed us to survive in colder regions, but thrive.
@@24killsequalMOAB yes it did, but not anymore. claiming that we HISTORICALLY naturally had to eat meat to survive, and thus we should do it TODAY *is* the naturalistic fallacy. something being natural doesn't make it good
When you look at populations in western countries you could see that we have more than enough calories. Comparing foods by calories is narrow-sighted. Meat, including organs, can alone provide most vitamins and minerals + essential amino acids + essential fatty acids + proteins. Everything highly bioavailable. While doing a vegan diet you must include different plants for proteins, minerals, and fats and those often need more substrates to convert to more available compounds.
I agree with his side, but this was a very bad performance and set of arguments. Only one meat-eating team member, Peterson, did a good job with the argumentation, what with the old guy not actually supporting the opposing position.
While he came across a little bit amateurish but he made some salient points. His argument for accepting everyone for who they are but why can't we accept meat eaters. I've long said the same about other Leftist attitudes and bashing of others.
It's because we accept people for actions that don't negatively effect others. We don't go to a dog fighting culture and say, "Hey that's who they are! We accept what you're doing!" There is a thin line between shaming and criticism of harmful practices and choices.
To bring up crop deaths demonstrates this man hasn't engaged in the debate beyond a very cursory overview. If you make a point against crop deaths, you make a greater point against the animal industry as we need far more total crops to feed those animals. Animal industry = more crops needed = more crop deaths. So, to minimize those we should eat vegan. It's a self-defeating point and unbecoming of an Oxford Union debate.
Please add some research on "regenerative agriculture" to your opinion and your point falls apart. Far better for our planet than any form of large scale plant agriculture. That is the direction to move to better human and planet health. Plus it can be implemented in areas that plant agriculture are not even an option (rocky, hilly, etc....). Prove it wrong.....
86% of what we feed livestock is either grass or waste by-products. Crop deaths is a very good argument. Especially when it comes to the consumption of game meats or grass fed livestock. You would only find it a bad argument if you are unaware of what we actually feed livestock.
@@Crazycorn2 Half of our corn goes to animals. 3/4 of our soy goes to animals. Half of all grains and cereals go to animals. A vegan world would require fewer crops and thus, fewer crop deaths. OP is correct.
@@NoInjusticeLastsForever not at all. Half of corn doesn't not go to animals. Where did you pull that from? If may be the case in the US but this is definitely not the case globally. The soy that we feed to animals is called soybean meal which is a byproduct of soybean oil production. As 86% of what livestock eat is grass or by-products a vegan world would require a lot more crops to replace the nutritionally dense meats. But as the world has absolutely no intention of going vegan we don't need to worry too much about that.
@@Crazycorn2 Half of all corn grown in the US is for livestock. USDA stat. 3/4 of soy is also grown for animals, another USDA stat. I'm aware of the difference, one anti-vegans love to bring up. Only 7% of soy is grown for direct human consumption, while 77% is grown for animals. Are you seriously suggesting 11 times what we consume is a "waste product"?
After watching the full debate I don't feel so bad now about not having spent years of my life and big money going to a private university. Thank you!
Well done for avoiding avoiding scam, but good look telling these people or those in power
@@elchaffinch4986 Lol so you admit those who go to these private universities are also those in power.
😆😆😆
Same here 🤣🤣
It's no more private than any other university.
This is weak. I could make a more coherent argument for meat eating and I'm a Vegan.
no you wont
Same. This guy did a terrible job and that's just me basing it on his performance and argument not the subject.
@@olliefoxx7165 I agree, although I think there was some sort of language barrier affecting the efficiency of his speech. Sounds like he isn't too fluent in English (which is quite surprising given that he is studying at Oxford's).
He looks very nice though. How I would love to try one of these well dressed Oxford boys!!
Please don't... lmaoo
On the subject of ethics I would have preferred to see someone with real world experience in farming and ranching themselves.
I hear you! I wished I had been invited... Self and family in livestock since 1865... And before that in the old country....
@@samb7652 They did bring up the good point that when you grow produce you have to kill off the entire ecosystem of bugs and vermin. Personally I like to use the point where happy animals taste better and are more tender.
@@vagabondwastrel2361 Try home-slaughtered animals rather than ones taken to an abbatoir. The issue is that you can't do this (in the UK) unless it's your own animals. It's illegal to even serve home-slaughtered meat to anyone outside of your direct family (iirc, who live in the same house - maybe wrong there). Taking animals to slaughter stresses them with the travel, with the new environment, with the production line, so the meat is full of cortisol before it's legal to sell to consumers.
I "get it" that this ensures that meat is produced in hygienic circumstances. Given the choice though, I'd take take meat from small-scale raised & home slaughtered animals any day.
I grew up around cattle ranching in Texas and later was lucky enough to receive a full scholarship for postgraduate studies at Oxford (Exeter College). When I was young, about thirteen, my cousin and I raised a calf for a 4 H project. The day we drove that beautiful creature to be tuned into slaughtered flesh was one of the worst in my life. I became a vegetarian soon after that traumatic experience. I am now a vegan and have been for a good long time now. I have to say honestly that Mikhaila's insensitive narcissism and arrogant privilege were stomach churning. I would suggest that she slaughter what she is eats, but I fear she might do so with a sense of glee. This remind me of the line in Yeats' poem _The Second Coming_ "The best lack all conviction, while the worst
/ Are full of passionate intensity."
I am aware that the uncritical acolytes of the Peterson cult will hate what I've said because they don't want to be bothered with the truth of the pain from the real world of ranching. Apologies if the truth made you uncomfortable.
@@2bsirius So curing your arthritis, autoimmune conditions and depression is deemed narcissistic and a privilege?
You need to get a sense of perspective. It's a dog eat cow world out there....
I haven't seen a german speak with such passion since the 40s.
No farmers in this debate? I guess they were too busy working.
Haha exactly! I remember growing up and realizing sadly that generally the people with the biggest voices in our society are those who aren't doing anything. I saw so many wise people in the jobs I worked who were almost oblivious to the outside world because they were to busy with work family and other things that make a healthy stable life. They usually had the most amazing healthy world views too and yet too busy to get them out there
Yeah too busy abusing animals and violating their bodies for profits. What good little martyrs they are!
As a rancher.... I thank you for your insight.
I was. And I wasn’t even given the opportunity to turn them down.
@@betterresolve3738 stop lying about my vocation, ignoramus.
I was sorely disappointed by this entire debate. Very shallow points made all around, the kinds of points you can find on hundreds of RUclips videos. I was hoping for some deeper, more philosophically grounded ideas.
I thought Carol Adam's thesis very good.
@@catherinehoy5548 Her particular brand of lunacy could only have been fostered in woke America
What happened to (2/8) of the debate?
good question 😖
It’s been canceled
who was on part 2?
@@allaboutedm8050 not Mikhaila
2nd part in meat.
He could have done a better job. "Refuting" Carol Adam's insane rant was not only a waste of time, it actually gave it credence.
where is the 2/8 part????
I know I don't see it either unless they are numbered wrong.
I believe there were some good points made by that speaker for eating meat, and this "debate" was clearly designed for the motion to carry. Wouldn't want to put out information that might sway someone's opinion against the preprogrammed narrative.
They ate it.....
How did debates in highschool turn out more reasonable and comprehensible than this debate in Oxford?
Need a few more meatier debates...This is all kind of lightweight. IMHO
Yes is this supposed to be the best debaters. 😬
Eat MANGOES, not MEAT. 🥭
MP was the meatiest. I’d love to see more about regenerative farming.
@@einar87 It's a fairy tale. That's why no one brings it up except people that don't know anything about it. It's indefensible in an actual debate where it falls apart under the slightest scrutiny. You have to waste 10 calories to get 1 back from meat. You need 3 acres for every 1 acre to raise livestock vs plants directly. There's no way around this. It's an inherently inefficient and inhumane process.
@@rasputozen
The problem with the energy/acreage argument is that it doesn’t pass the economics test.
Meat has more energy in it per unit volume. It is a better source to get energy from as a consumer. Any imbalance from acreage or energy that goes into it is reflected into the cost to produce and thus purchase the meat. So from economics, meat is more expensive due to the higher production cost. That is a fact. It’s cost per unit energy is not an issue.
We do not have an issue feeding people with acreage or energy. That is A BS argument. Places in the world with massive starvation have more than enough resources. It is typically horrible governments that cause food and other resources like energy not to be distributed.
Now the issue we have in the US (especially) is a consumption issue that is worsened by a starch-filled bad food pyramid created from bad science, a social environment that pushes an unhealthy body image as “healthy”, food waste caused by government regulations pushed by big businesses (requiring day-old, but good food to be thrown away to prevent “competition”), and sugar products being pushed like drugs. If you address any one of those issues even slightly, you would reduce the environmental impact more significantly than cutting meat. Sugar and calorie rich food can be vegan. I eat some vegan products. I make cauliflower “chicken” kung pow. And you can absolutely make those products just as bad for the environment.
I feel like I could have given a better speech right now and I haven’t done any research. How do they choose these people? Mikhaila was clearly the only one in her right mind that night.
She gave the details of the effects she experienced on her diet. Other than a few people with unusual dietary requirements, there are no good arguments for continuing animal agriculture as we know it.
@@someguy2135 I understand what Mikhaila gave. All the other arguments were bad.
@@katethegreat4918 If you don't know the facts, the claims made by the spokespeople advocating for the proposition may have sounded wacky. If you doubt any of their claims, specify which ones in this thread and I might be able to support them with evidence from credible sources.
@@katethegreat4918 What is your current position on the proposition "Should society finally move beyond meat?" Keep in mind that the proposition is not that eating meat should be outlawed (necessarily) but that the harm done by it (the environment for example) justifies moving past it, kind of like how the US government has discouraged smoking tobacco. It didn't outlaw it, but it has taken steps to discourage it due to the harm it causes. Some people still smoke, but it isn't the norm for adults that it used to be.
@kate the great you trolling?
As a proud meat eater myself, I have to say the debate of the pro-meat side was very underwhelming. It could and should have been done much better…
The anti meat side was worse. Much worse, and filled with nothing but ma’ feminism and patriarchy and white supremacy other BS.
Could it have been better, sure. But beating a vegan doesn’t require much effort.
besides the old trick to use one of the members of pro meat to talk against meat :D
Did you watch the same debate we did?
@@FilmFlam-8008 Completely agree. But I would like to see our side squash more of the Vegans’ BS claims like meat being the biggest contributor to GW etc and especially all the claims of that crazy lady at the end…
@@tutucox Yeah that was a shocker too. I was like “JUDAS!!!” :))
It's crazy to think that these speakers are "scholars". These institutions are a joke nowadays and their viewpoints on things no longer hold weight in the real world.
you care to explain?
@@Ber9200 he won't expand. It was just a silly statement
Did you watch the entire debate, with the exception of a few speakers. This was a incredible weak debate.@@Ber9200
@@Ber9200 not trying to be an asshole, it was just my observation after watching numerous debates from institutions such as these. They aren't what the used to be. To many feelings not enough facts.
@@codeman135791 I just don’t see why you would take the underwhelming experience of one debate and extrapolate that to make a claim about “these institutions”. (Presumably universities?)
When, your argument, is, seperated, by, breaks, and pauses, it breaks, the attention, of the audience, obfuscating, the erroneous claims. And, that, is how, you make, an argument, more interesting to, your own, side of, the aisle. Thank you.
Haha. Yes, this last one was a bit nerve wrecking.
6/8 was the best one, imo.
@@GiriColnat 3/8 and 6/8 are a tie for concise arguments in my opinion
@@GiriColnat 6/8 was great. It condensed the motion down into a clear question of ethics without resorting to weak arguments about culture and tradition, unverifiable statistics, or invoking psalms.
I found it easier to follow, actually.
Sing posting would have helped too.
So on the side of the opposition we have:
Mikhaila - who was one of two who seemed to actually do research and prepare for their speech (kudos)
Peter - the other of the two who actually seemed well read and prepared but was incredibly irresponsible for accepting a position on the opposition then arguing for the proposition
and Manuel - Someone who seems to have forgotten he was even in a debate, showed up and put together an argument mid event (you can literally see him writing it while sitting there), of which is on par with what could be expected from a grade schooler.
The proposition had a literal clown so i guess it wasn't much better. I mean she had the audience unironically laughing AT her at such an event.
Is this really oxford? I'm feeling second hand embarrassment over here.
Almost every closer writes during the debate because they address what the other debaters points were
The opposition needed a doctor who has actual clinical experience with meat as medicine.
simply fluff, no substance
Is there no discussion or questions allowed in this debate? If not, is it even a debate??? They’re just presenting their views without being questioned. I find it rather disappointing. Hopefully they upload the part wherethey rebut each other’s positions and take questions.
The speaker has the option to accept or deny question, "points of order". There are 4 arguing for and 4 against the proposal. So there are 7 other videos for the whole debate.
@@richarddrapeau7599 I mean yeah I watched all the other videos and nobody was allowed to neither ask questions nor rebut an argument. I'm saying the structure of this was more of a presentation rather than a debate. I did not like it as a debate, but some of the points were Interesting and one was very much out there for sure haha
@@gustavotorres5304 they were obviously allowed to rebut arguments, and they could have even asked questions, but it's not a harvard style debate, which perhaps you're used to. Here there isn't banter, so you can pose questions and you can address things that have been said, but it's not a back and forth. ;-) for the style you're talking about, check out the soho forum debates. :-)
What a load of bollocks.
Was there a vote at the end, I heard about it in a talk but cannot find any results?
The result was that it was carried (115-105)
@@stuffandnonsense8528 for or against?
@@shadowninja569 The motion carried means it was agreed to. Which was, 'We need to move beyond meat'.
@@shadowninja569 For. Being carried means that the proposition was successful.
The analogy to marrying whoever you want would only make sense if we lived in a society where people could marry whoever they want without asking their partner of choice for concent. In a liberal society, you cannot marry anyone who doesn’t concent. It would be putting your own desire to be with this person over their right to not being forced into a marriage with someone they don’t want to.
In the same manner we do not eat animals because it is unethical to put our own desire for the temporary pleasure we receive from eating the animal over their right of living unharmed.
After listening to this 2 vs 5 debate. I think the opposing side has done a super amazing job.
LOL
Well, half of it did. Is English not this guy's first language? Seemed to have some difficulty with word choice. And nervousness.
It did seem structured to favour the vegan argument. 4 speakers vs 3, and one of the three clearly supporting the vegan argument preferentially and only half heartedly making any arguments for meat consumption.
@@robinthrush9672 he speaks german you can hear it in his accent
the guy was all over the place, I couldn't follow a single argument he made
That's what happens when you're given 10 minutes.
@@sfgox10 That's what happens when his position is indefensible. Logical fallacies are used by non-vegans, regardless of time constraints.
@@NoInjusticeLastsForever veganism is total nonsense and full of non sequiturs . This guy is just lightweight.
@@AkulaSriRahul Yes because trying to minimize harm to animals is "total nonsense". Do you actually believe the words you use?
@@AkulaSriRahul Can you explain why it is total nonsense?
Ahaha when the Oxford Union edits out the proposition heckling this speaker and breaking points of order
Im surprise that only two people on one side of the debate were invited, specially when the vegan side had a lady that put together sexism/racism in the same place with "eating meat" it made it look not good
2/8 Censored ??!!
If our ancestors weren't hunters and gatherers we would not exist today there would be no human beings we would've went to the wayside with the dinosaurs
That's not an argument for how we should act in 2022.
I am a meat eater and feel no guilt whatsoever about it, I'm only pointing out that you're not making a good argument, IMO.
Did he learn his oratorical skills from Christopher Waltz?
100% accurate lol
Did anyone think to bring in someone experienced and knowledgeable in meat raising and production? Without that, this is just babbling goofballs.
Which side won the election?
Weston A Price should be central to this debate. He noted that indigenous people including European had good /strait teeth, wide jaw and good bone structure prior to Western diets being introduced.
THANK YOU. I just can't understand how people can begin debating nutrition without talking about it...
@@fuzzymeep he compared ancestral diets with modern diets from cultures form all around the world, not only in western countries)
He was a dentist.
@@Mrm1985100 First line of his wikipedia page :"Weston Andrew Valleau Price (September 6, 1870 - January 23, 1948) was a Canadian dentist known primarily for his theories on the relationship between nutrition, dental health, and physical health"
@@Runningwhore As I pointed out, though yes a better description would be the introduction of contemporary Western diets.
I guess as a working class man I should be cynical too.
6:22 The gentleman on the right🤣🤣.I need that as a GIF
me too!
@@princesaprebava "The laugh, the wave that extends to shake the whole body and the sudden stillness worrying that he did it too much" A WORK OF ART✨😝
This debate was set up terribly. Was the debate over whole foods, vegan, vegetarianism, or banning meat consumption? the opposing side was hamstrung with terrible speakers.. And if you want to ban meat eatting, by way of argue against putting things in cages and force feeding unnatural things... but then that would mean putting me in a cage and not allowing me to eat meat... allow me the same rights you afford bears..
Arguing against ever eating meat is as absurd as arguing against ever eating grains... and forcing that by way of legislation.. a way to war.
So in part 2 it was mentioned that crop production kills many many small animals.... interesting. I suppose spraying wheat barley potatoes with a insecticide will.have a knock on effect including our beloved bees.
Where is part two?
and since many of those crops are fed to livestock, switching to a plant based diet would not only prevent the death of livestock but a large part of the "many many small animals" as well.
If you stop meat consumption you have to increase plant growing. Growing plants is very soil intensive. It's also involves lots of chemicals insecticides, pesticides, fungicides also the famous round up. It's not as simple as saying let's stop meat consumption. Land has to be ploughed, ploughing land breaks down the soil structure. Grasslands restore soil structure and add back the nutrients lost due to growing crops. Is warm climates growing plants leads to desertification of the soil. Have you ever heard of the dust bowl from the 1920s? The soil blew away and sand storms in the US. The world needs balance not monocultures. Having massive plantations of crops and fruit is very bad for the planet. The world needs diversity and grasslands create diversity.
@@nathanielg.m.888 no, more of those small animals would be killed as we need to grow more vegetation for humans to ingest.
@@Washpenrebel No you don't. You can always tell when someone is trying to act like they know what they're talking about on a subject when they have no clue. If you knew the details, you'd know that a vegan world would grow less crops than we currently are. It's counterintuitive, which is how I know you are ignorant on the subject at hand.
There is a place where opposition applauds an argument? I'm new to this, and it blows my little mind. I will be watching many more of these debates, and hopefully, I will ACTUALLY LEARN SOMETHING!
Why do these people speak of different cultures as if they're 12 year olds who don't have minds of their own. The idea that it would be wrong to challenge the practices of another culture based on sensitivity alone is idiotic. All that matters is whether or not you have a logically rational argument.
nothing wrong with earing meat. i dont care what the western vegan culture thinks
What’s a “logically rational argument”?
@@Ber9200 I'm a moral subjectivist so the argument relies on *if* the person cares about the rights of human beings.
Other than that it's a simple consistency test. What is the morally substantive difference between humans and animals that means its acceptable to kill animals for food, but not humans?
@@jhunt5578 That's not an answer to my question. But congrats on being a moral subjectivist (?) ig.
@@Ber9200 How is it not an answer? In my first comment I was speaking generally.
I'm providing you a means of getting to a logical conclusion on your position and you're dismissing it?
This bloke hasn't been in England long enough to know that smarminess is not a good look.
debating veganism is like standing in a deep hole with only a shovel as tool for getting up.
There just ain't no good opposition reasoning.
So, what was the outcome of the vote? Does anybody know?
I also want to know!
A win for Beyond Meat. Despite the heckling.
Someone please give Thanos the glove back
What a load of nonsense.
Why is no one even addressing the utter lunacy that is an ancient, elitist and once respected institution is hosting a forum debating what people should be allowed to eat. How far we have fallen.
idk if it's about what we're allowed to do so much as if we still need to, or should do.
@@Enwazzirb tell that to the WEF and agenda 21 which literally wants to control what people can and can't eat
Banning meat was not the proposition.
Here it is- "Should society finally move beyond meat?"
@@dirtnbloodnotherkids was this debate about WEF and agenda 21?
@@someguy2135 its called context, there's a reason this debate is popping up now. People have 0 pattern recognition skills these days..
Lisa's husband, Andy here. It isn't a liberal agenda. It is a left-wing agenda. Liberalism is about freedom and choice.👍By the way, meat eating is practiced by many races and both genders around the world. I agree that farming ethics could be better but that can be labelled to plant food as well. 👍
4:20 these guys are really loving the joke that everyone has already heard
It's true though.
All about Oxford Union is staged, and so are the laughs.
Was it too much trouble to upload this thing in whole?
my theory is that they get more "engratement" by youtube algorithms when it's several pieces, and then comments under each piece, etc...
That was very good, all-round! Good format for such a personal topic. ...and the moderators looked like cartoons haha
Different things affect different people at different times in their lives. Some people should be vegans for their health and others should eat meat. You do you and I’ll do me.
if what i do is torture people for a living, would you still accept the "you do you" argument?
@@keeparguing611 what a moronic thing to say.
It’s very very very unlikely that anyone **Should** be a vegan. But if they WANT to be a vegan, then they gotta do it really safely
@@nubbinthemonkey how come? because it directly refutes the "you do you" argument if what you are doing is causing great harm?
@@keeparguing611 of course he wouldn’t. But animals are not humans. Humans have rights, animals do not. Killing a human is murder, killing an animal is not.
Soon as he started speaking he done my head in.
So there is no video of the vote or of the rounding up the debate? Disappointing.
Man was a little nervous, but actually had a good defense. Just because he wasn't playing in on peoples emotions and had to tackle nonsensical arguments by the other side some people think he actually did a bad job.
Well, I stick to it. If it comes push to shove, that such a discussion is held on a societal scale I'll vote no. If it will be forbidden against the majorities will (as is to be expected if this ever will turn out) I will start hunting no matter the consequences! I will eat meat, my diet is becoming more and more carnivorous in nature and I will not have anyone force me to switch to hyper processed foods because of their watery moral superiority complexes. And nothing else is this discussion. It's morality over everything health, morality over choice. My body, my choice, I decide what to put in it!
I'm vegan and I hardly eat any processed foods. I eat WFPB which is whole grains, beans, vegetables and fruit; all foods our ancestors have been eating since the dawn of time.
Animals body, animals choice? Also vegans don´t advocate for ban of meat. Vegans advocate for gradual societal change and a change in our attitude towards eating animal products etc.
You believe your choices are yours? They are made on the basis of the evidence available to you ... I might humbly suggest expanding your evidence base and even then know that your sense of free will is only a sense ...
The ethical issues against killing animals for consumption is unnatural, how do vegans deal with the fact that nature is an eternal death cycle, with excruciating pain? We humans just gotten more efficient at it. However, it increases the level of suffering to the animal, something that should be addressed.
Death for animals in Nature is rarely ever swift, in fact there are a number of animals that eat other animals alive while they are screaming in agony. Chimpanzees eat small monkeys alive ripping them limb from limb totally oblivious to their suffering. In modern times when humans kill animals directly for food it is instantaneous unless a mistake was made. Where humans cause the most suffering to animals is in agriculture were millions of ton's poison are used every year to kill "pest animals": rodents, rabbits, birds, dear, etc.
Why would we want to follow 'nature' as our ethical guide?! Animals rape each other.
The argument isn't that killing animals is unnatural, rather that it is unethical. What is natural is not necessarily ethical, as there are many behaviours found in the natural that we as human beings in most societies generally find immoral, such as rape, cannibalism, murder etc. This is especially the case in societies where we no longer need to resort to such behaviour to defend ourselves and to survive. The ethical argument is that wealthy societies don't need animal products to live healthily, meaning that the suffering caused to animals by killing and using them is unnecessary and thus unethical.
This is the quality of the debate at Oxford!! Damn. Disappointing.
Superb! It gave three women the opportunity to either talk about themselves or evangelise for feminism or critical race theory. I haven't laughed watching a "debate" in years.
some hopefully as construcitive perceived criticism.
he really overacts his gesticulation. (especialy in the beginning) toning it down a little, would make his presentation more convincing and enjoyable
Oxford Union debates are a lot like TED Talks, at one time they used to have high standards. These days it is just a free for all of inane ideological nonsense. I note that 2 of 8 is not posted, I can only imagine that was the one speaker with some compelling argument for eating meat, wouldn't want anyone to see that would we. Out of the 7 speakers shown, not a one presented a compelling rational argument, and most were an outright embarrassment.
This issue has been debated ad nauseum for years and we all know both sides quite well by now, the vast majority choose meat.
Really? You didn't find Mikhaila Peterson's argument compelling?
@@_Oz_ no, because most people can't relate to her. Most of us didn't have the crazy illnesses like she and her family have gone through. Why the heck should we put animals through suffering because it helped MP and her family?
A good debate would have clearly laid out the strongest points on both sides and proceeded to challenge them. Sadly no one wants to do that these days, even at so-called prestigious institutions so here we are bitching in the comments section instead.
@@Muslimah1987 I identify with her. Thousands of others identify with her. Just look at the size of her audience. Just look at the numbers of people that belong to the World Carnivore Tribe on FB. Carnivore communities are growing. Meat matters.
@@_Oz_ We don't mean to belittle this condition however, it is not a valid argument for the vast majority of the general public.
@@ericmichel3857 I'd say the research she remarked on at the end of her time was pretty compelling, knowing a number of people who suffer from diabetes myself.
so, 4 arguments for no meat and 3 for meat... i don't want to think that there is an agenda...
I'm not 100% sure, but RUclips is evidently censoring 2/8 of the debate.
So who won?
Part 2?
Enjoyed this, obviously not his first language either, well done
Glad to see others in the comments being of like mind about this speech. I only have a Masters degree from U of Liverpool but this speech lacked meat.
The only guy that actually tried to create a debate
It was a weak closer... but yeah, I think if he was on earlier and there was more back and forth, this would of been a really good contribution. Hardly his fault. Didn't really feel like the kind of debates that we were spoiled with 10 years ago.
@@kalaherty i agree, but still, he was the only one trying to make an actual debate
What was the result?
All debate turns were good and well written, except for one. This debate lacked the issue of human nutrition. What is actually a good diet for human consumption. Obviously one reason is that we don't really know yet what is the actual healthy diet for humans. One of the few things we know, healthy diet does not have processed foods in it and if we would go full vegan, we would be consuming much more ultra-proceseed foods.
Just saying something is not immoral isn’t an argument.
Gee.... I sure wish I could get into Oxford some day...........................
heavy doctor who vibes.
As usual the answer is somewhere in the middle!
I always say the same to people who believe we shouldn't be able to rape and murder each other. Thanks for being a voice of reason!
Is this the people who are being educated at university God help us.
Freedom of choice. Nice this guy nailed it. Sad that only two of the opposition speakers were competent on the material.
How did the vote go?
MP did well speaking about her ersonal experience along with studys of the positive effects of eating meat.
Any diet when u quit sugar refined carbs and process foods will be healthier. However that doesn’t equate to u can’t be healthy without eating any animals
You can’t be healthy being vegan?
Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (formerly known as American Dietetic Association)
“It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes.”
Dietitians of Canada
“A healthy vegan diet can meet all your nutrient needs at any stage of life including when you are pregnant, breastfeeding or for older adults.”
The British National Health Service
“With good planning and an understanding of what makes up a healthy, balanced vegan diet, you can get all the nutrients your body needs.”
The British Nutrition Foundation
“A well-planned, balanced vegetarian or vegan diet can be nutritionally adequate ... Studies of UK vegetarian and vegan children have revealed that their growth and development are within the normal range.”
The Dietitians Association of Australia
“Vegan diets are a type of vegetarian diet, where only plant-based foods are eaten. With good planning, those following a vegan diet can cover all their nutrient bases.
The United States Department of Agriculture
“Vegetarian diets (see context) can meet all the recommendations for nutrients. The key is to consume a variety of foods and the right amount of foods to meet your calorie needs. Follow the food group recommendations for your age, sex, and activity level to get the right amount of food and the variety of foods needed for nutrient adequacy. Nutrients that vegetarians may need to focus on include protein, iron, calcium, zinc, and vitamin B12.”
The National Health and Medical Research Council
“Appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthy and nutritionally adequate. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the lifecycle. Those following a strict vegetarian or vegan diet can meet nutrient requirements as long as energy needs are met and an appropriate variety of plant foods are eaten throughout the day”
The Mayo Clinic
“A well-planned vegetarian diet (see context) can meet the needs of people of all ages, including children, teenagers, and pregnant or breastfeeding women. The key is to be aware of your nutritional needs so that you plan a diet that meets them.”
The Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
“Vegetarian diets can provide all the nutrients you need at any age, as well as some additional health benefits.”
Harvard Medical School
“Traditionally, research into vegetarianism focused mainly on potential nutritional deficiencies, but in recent years, the pendulum has swung the other way, and studies are confirming the health benefits of meat-free eating. Nowadays, plant-based eating is recognized as not only nutritionally sufficient but also as a way to reduce the risk for many chronic illnesses.”
British Dietetic Association
“Well planned vegetarian diets (see context) can be nutritious and healthy. They are associated with lower risks of heart disease, high blood pressure, Type 2 diabetes, obesity, certain cancers and lower cholesterol levels. This could be because such diets are lower in saturated fat, contain fewer calories and more fiber and phytonutrients/phytochemicals (these can have protective properties) than non-vegetarian diets. (...) Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of life and have many benefits.”
Kaiser Permanente
Kaiser Permanente, the largest health maintenance organisation in the United States with 12.2 million health plan members, 217,415 employees, 22,914 physicians, 59,127 nurses, 39 medical centers, and 690 medical facilities recommends that people follow a plant-based diet that "does not include animal products, such as meat, poultry, fish, dairy, and eggs."
@@veganix6757 of course SOME can be healthy being vegan but that doesnt apply to ALL
@@0deszuh111 no all can. Tell me a condition and link a study to prove this claim of yours. U can get all nutrients required without eating animals
@@veganix6757 did u even watch the whole debate including mikhaila’s?
@@0deszuh111 r u choosing anecdotes over science?
What was the result of the vote?
I don't remember the exact numbers but it was close. The vegans won though.
@@zachraines5826 its because who ever made set this up stacked the deck. 6 speakers for and 2 against? What the fuck they cheated and it was almost a tie.
@@zachraines5826 Appreciate it
@@kevinadams8156 have a cry.
What’s your moral justification for needlessly killing and exploiting innocent animals
@@veganix6757
First, not needless because people need to eat.
Second, Because of evolutionary biology. We need meat for proper growth and sustainability. Things like vitamin B12.
What do you feed dogs or cats? Dry dog or cat food? Do you know what is actually in it? Do you think just because it is dry it is made from plants?
Should no one have a pet because animals are slaughtered for them?
Should zoos not exist because animals are needed to feed the predators and omnivores?
Third, plants scream when cut and killed. Just because you can’t hear it doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Basically, you are saying it is OK to cut off and eat the leg of a paralyzed person because you can’t see them in pain. Sorry, you can’t live without killing.
You can argue for humane farms, sure. People will easily agree with that. But arguing for no meat because unnecessary killing is logically silly.
Is this the gordan ramsay of speaking?
He skipped every speech class
Not a good speech. 1. Very heavy handed on the culture war element, involving the ubiquitous ad hominem attacks instead of facts and statistics. Most of what comes across here is "don't tell me how to live" and "the other side is hypocritical" 2. One too many statements of opinion as fact, without supporting them in any way. The facts that did finally get presented, were not well delivered... 3. A lot of un-natural pausing, self-interrupting, repeating, stuttering, and other nervous fumbling with words. Two-star delivery at best - given the previous speaker, I can half understand why, but to let this damage your own argument still shows a lack of maturity and level of incompetence on your own part. 4. An overly emotional, and accusatory tone throughout. Again half understandable given the previous speakers remarks. Mikhaila's speech was 1000% better in every way.
Where are the results?
I solved this question with just one comment. A vegan friend asked me, if the government stopped you hunters/meat eaters couldn't eat meat anymore. What would do? I said easy, we'll start hunting and eating vegans. When they're all gone no problem.
Bahahahahahahaha.! Gonna have to use that one!
Animals in the wild rip each other to shreds many billions of times per day. Many are eaten alive. Life lives by eating life. In the end, we will all be eaten by something. Try to reduce suffering, and learn to accept life as temporary and you will find peace.
and this is the debate level at Oxford?
Unbelievably..... Sad!
...sorry ..my cell posted this before it was finished.. Apart from the nutritional benefits of red meats especially , the crucial part these ruminent animals play in the sustainability of our soils , our ranges and woodlands is absolutely essential to the health of the land and it's ability to provide food , shelter and habitat for all the wildlife that presently call it home, as well as continuing to provide food for the 98% of the population who have chosen to live in cities and towns and villages where most creatures are domestic pets and also require feeding a nutritious diet.
If we continue to farm only grains and vegetables and fruits on our arable lands , ..harvest the produce and remove it to be consumed by people in cities and by their vehicles in the farm of ethanol, and ONLY .commercial fertilizers are used to grow future crops, then the nutritional value of those crops becomes depleted ..as it already has is most farm lands that do not have access anymore to the rich manures that mixed farms , dairies, and livestock operations have access to.
Millions of bison used to roam across Canada's plains , rotational grazing our amazing prairies ,foothills,valleys and range lands...same scenario south of us in the USA.. Now 130 plus years later , those big ruminants have mostly been replaced with our herds of cows ..which CAN, and sometime ARE still being bred back to bison bulls..(These offspring are called beefalo as they are the same species) .
Not ONE of Oxfords debaters presented the case for the sustainability of the SOIL.. The value of natural recycling of the forage plants and shrubs these animals graze on to continue the cycle TODAY' RANCHERS , me and my family included, provide TONS of essential minerals in a palatable form , in feeders placed strategically on our rangelands for cattle AND other wild animals to supplement any that may be missing in their diet in those areas . This overcomes their need to travel MILES to natural "mineral licks" that served the wild bison for thousands of years as they roamed the prairies . Now considering that 80% of all that a Ruminant ( cow , bison ,sheep,goat ) eats , is excreted and left in powerfully nutritious patties or small balls, including vital seeds which have passed still viable, through their gut, protected and provided with a safe growing environment AND perfect nutrient and mulch balance .. not to be touched or eaten for 2 years at least .. thereby ensuring their survival and sustainability .. The process is ancient and beautiful and absolutely :VITAL to the survival of ALL the life on this planet . North America , South America, Africa , China ,Russia...wherever on this planet that there are soils that grow plants and trees, there are animals and birds that EAT them AND provide the necessary recycling component through their bodies .. Take that away.. and the land suffocated and dies and becomes a desert or wasteland . That has been proven over and over . Nature provides ..BUT she xan be CRUEL..( ever seen a wolf take down a cow moose while she is calving? I HAVE AND IT WAS BRUTAL..) but IT IS all part of nature. The wolves prey on our calves too..just as they did on the bison calves . That's why we still ride horses in the west .. We try to keep a healthy balance since we share these ranges with all the species that live here .
All we ranchers ask of you people, is that you find out the TRUTH , take the time to research these statements coming from well meaning but ill-informed activists , and consider the long term harm they are proposing for this planet . We are trying our best to keep you all fed with the most completely sustaining diet of wholesome red meats while protecting the precious lands still left safe from traffic and pavement for now at least
I use to enjoy these debates but this one was terribly done. None of the speakers except the Peterson woman, seemed to know their topic or based their topic on actual research or science. If Oxford use to be a bastion of Western thought it no longer is today. The arguments were for the most part emotional based and political babble. RUclips has far better debates on this topic. This is a sad pathetic performance by both sides and there are no winners.
He wiped the floor with Heather. Good job!
I believe the result was that it was carried (115-105). A disturbingly narrow win for such a clear case.
The proposition was vague. There's no good vote.
@@tgyul the vague aspect of the proposition (like many) was just a headline. The content of the proposition (or at least the arguments made for it) were, for the most part, far from vague.
@@stuffandnonsense8528 well, I might not be seeing the whole wording then? I only read "should society finally move beyond meat?" - And the vote is binary. I find that "finally" and "beyond" can be meant in many different ways. Well, even "society" is vague.
Personally, I'd support the general direction, but oppose anything that can be meant in an extreme sense.
@@tgyul This debate was set up terribly. Was the debate over whole foods, vegan, vegetarianism, or banning meat consumption?
the opposing side was hamstrung with terrible speakers.. And if you want to ban meat eatting, by way of argue against putting things in cages and force feeding unnatural things... but then that would mean putting me in a cage and not allowing me to eat meat... allow me the same rights you afford bears..
Arguing against ever eating meat is as absurd as arguing against ever eating grains... and forcing that by way of legislation.. a way to war.
@@stuffandnonsense8528 I think I blew your “clear case” right out of the water with my knowledgeable, experienced response in your other thread below.
I would have loved to have seen Shawn Baker there. I bet he would have done a phenomenal job!
No he would have done terrible
It's funny to take the victim position and talk about how shamed you are as a meat eater, when i'm pretty sure an insanely small percentage of people are non-meat eaters
People without strong arguments use the victim position to get sympathy from other people. He is trying to make vegans look bad. I think it can also be a form of self-doubt.
"Passion"? Nah, that would be derangement!
so, which house won? :D
I would have liked to hear. at the end of this speech... "With care and Humane treatment of Animals .... Better ways to not cause fear and horrific situations ... and continue eating meat". But sadly he did not and ignored the plight of animals in his argument, which kinda lost my respect. But as they say, People will do what they always have done blindly until it's to late.... so let it all continue and time will tell. No need for further debate. But for those of us who see something different, we WILL make a difference and reduce suffering and no one can stop us.. since we all have the right to do what we all want to in life.
So thanks to this debate for reaffirming my ideals and encouraging me to achieve what I want to achieve to help other species through my own actions. Which at the end of the day is all that matters.
Ever notice how most Vegans seem to be middle class.
What was the ethical argument? That plant foods would increase bad farming? Or that it was a kind of cultural imperialism? Or both? Neither of these work. The farming is an empirical point. Even 'grass fed' meat is much more demanding of land, calories per meter squared are far lower so the damage is ultimately greater especially if like is compared with like (worst meat with worst plant, best meat with best plant). The imperialist argument was just too vague.
The cultural argument can certainly work, but we don't take that as a persuasive stance when it comes to other unethical culturally important activities (countless cultures have been based on the subjugation of women, we do not accept that as a good reason to allow such cultures to continue).
It is antidarwinist to prohibit or even encourage veganism.
@@24killsequalMOAB 'antidarwinist'? That's an odd thing to say. Are you familiar with the naturalistic fallacy?
@@stuffandnonsense8528 The Naturalistic Fallacy is a Fallacy in it of itself. The only thing Nature dictates is survival, and meat eating not only allowed us to survive in colder regions, but thrive.
@@24killsequalMOAB yes it did, but not anymore. claiming that we HISTORICALLY naturally had to eat meat to survive, and thus we should do it TODAY *is* the naturalistic fallacy. something being natural doesn't make it good
When you look at populations in western countries you could see that we have more than enough calories. Comparing foods by calories is narrow-sighted. Meat, including organs, can alone provide most vitamins and minerals + essential amino acids + essential fatty acids + proteins. Everything highly bioavailable. While doing a vegan diet you must include different plants for proteins, minerals, and fats and those often need more substrates to convert to more available compounds.
I agree with his side, but this was a very bad performance and set of arguments. Only one meat-eating team member, Peterson, did a good job with the argumentation, what with the old guy not actually supporting the opposing position.
While he came across a little bit amateurish but he made some salient points. His argument for accepting everyone for who they are but why can't we accept meat eaters. I've long said the same about other Leftist attitudes and bashing of others.
It's because we accept people for actions that don't negatively effect others. We don't go to a dog fighting culture and say, "Hey that's who they are! We accept what you're doing!"
There is a thin line between shaming and criticism of harmful practices and choices.
To bring up crop deaths demonstrates this man hasn't engaged in the debate beyond a very cursory overview. If you make a point against crop deaths, you make a greater point against the animal industry as we need far more total crops to feed those animals. Animal industry = more crops needed = more crop deaths. So, to minimize those we should eat vegan. It's a self-defeating point and unbecoming of an Oxford Union debate.
Please add some research on "regenerative agriculture" to your opinion and your point falls apart. Far better for our planet than any form of large scale plant agriculture. That is the direction to move to better human and planet health. Plus it can be implemented in areas that plant agriculture are not even an option (rocky, hilly, etc....). Prove it wrong.....
86% of what we feed livestock is either grass or waste by-products.
Crop deaths is a very good argument. Especially when it comes to the consumption of game meats or grass fed livestock.
You would only find it a bad argument if you are unaware of what we actually feed livestock.
@@Crazycorn2 Half of our corn goes to animals. 3/4 of our soy goes to animals. Half of all grains and cereals go to animals. A vegan world would require fewer crops and thus, fewer crop deaths. OP is correct.
@@NoInjusticeLastsForever not at all. Half of corn doesn't not go to animals. Where did you pull that from? If may be the case in the US but this is definitely not the case globally.
The soy that we feed to animals is called soybean meal which is a byproduct of soybean oil production.
As 86% of what livestock eat is grass or by-products a vegan world would require a lot more crops to replace the nutritionally dense meats.
But as the world has absolutely no intention of going vegan we don't need to worry too much about that.
@@Crazycorn2 Half of all corn grown in the US is for livestock. USDA stat.
3/4 of soy is also grown for animals, another USDA stat. I'm aware of the difference, one anti-vegans love to bring up. Only 7% of soy is grown for direct human consumption, while 77% is grown for animals. Are you seriously suggesting 11 times what we consume is a "waste product"?
That dude is actually kinda cute
so, who won?
Amazing how ruminants can turn sunshine, air, and water into human nutrients while improving the land.
Fuck me, this guy is all over the shop.
Where is the crazy lady argument
JRE
The previous argument to this
Nutrients from meat are essential for human life and health. End of debate.
Not really. There is plenty of people who never ate meat and they live healthy. I wouldn't be sure of the essentiality.