Sometimes, you don't have to take a side, you can walk the middle line. You can be a moderate like this guy (even tho the format of the debate is opposition vs proponent).
The only thing she could realistically claim was that some very sick people need to have access to an elimination diet so they can live at least a little bit longer.
@@carinaekstrom1 she wouldn't have gotten sick in the first place if she had been eating only or mostly Ruminent meat. Do you realize how many diseased people there are? How many could be prevented if more people had access to red meat? Our HC system would not be overburdened if more ate mostly or only meat
@@KotoriOnWheels Research studies show that the less meat people eat, the healthier they are, with the occasional exception of certain fish. Worst is processed meats, then comes red meat. Mikhaila is a lazy, or biased researcher. She got sick because there's a dysbiosis in her gut microbiome. Also she's been on so many medications that she's in a viscious circle that she can't get out of. It's not normal human physiology to not be able to eat plants. The Inuit eat as many plants as they can get their hands on. Mikhaila is now discovering that she can't even eat beef. Too many autoimmune issues still, so she's trying mostly lamb. If she doesn't get her gut dysbiosis in order she will die very early.
@@carinaekstrom1 you are not up on the research. Red meat is the most highly nutritious and absorbable food on the planet. Evolution doesn't lie. And you need to read more.
@@KotoriOnWheels I most certainly am very much up on the research and you are wrong about meat. Heme iron, wrong type of vit A, cancercausing protein, heart disease, diabetes, IGF1, TMAO, no thanks. I am the healthiest person I know my age (63), and I have not had meat for 52 years.
Ok I agree that factory farming is not a sustainable practice...but this guy is effectively batting for the other team in a debate.... Regenerative farming is a completely sustainable practice which can be individualised at the level of local communities and used on non-arable land. It can promoted healthy local economic development away from large distributors and boost community involvement. That's something that industrial monocrop farming can't do. Regenerative ag also sequesters carbon into the soil. Furthermore the problem we run into is taking meat/fat out of the diet means that we need to replace it with less nutrient dense foods such as plants and that leads to their own bunch of problems. The climate issue is more about the entire production cycle analysis of animal based farming and then not taking into account the whole production cycle of the other industries. I haven't gotten around to read the latest ipcc on this so maybe they addressed it. Not sure what it took him 6 mins to talk about why factory farming was bad...
Wrong. A meta analysis show it can only reduce carbon by 20-60%. Which only lasts for 13 years. It’s improvement but not the best. Best way is not eating any animals. 50% of worlds land surface is for agriculture and if we all went vegan 75% less agricultural land would be needed. However if we just transferred out of factory farming to only regen then there wouldn’t be enough land on earth for that. Grazing animals are leading cause of deforestation.
@@managerialelitetoaster3456 A study titled Grazed and Confused, published by the University of Oxford in 2017, looked at the environmental impact of grass-fed cows. While lead researcher Dr Tara Garnett accepted that certain grazing managements can put carbon into the soil, she added that these would at best amount to 20-60 per cent of the emissions the animals use in the first place. What’s more, the soil reaches soil carbon equilibrium after a few decades, meaning it cannot sequester any more carbon. At this point, none of the emissions from the animals would be offset, and farmers would need to either use more land or stop farming. Grass-fed cows have also been found to have a greater environmental impact compared to grain-fed due to increased resource use, as well as emissions from the farming process and animals themselves.
Imagine a defense attorney in a murder trial saying, “I think my client did it, and I know he did it, but at least he did it with a gun and not a knife.” That’s the kind of defense argument this amounts to.
At the start of his "opposition", he said the organizers of the event wanted him on the side against the measure. Sounds like they and he both stacked the deck against the opposition to the proposition.
#TeamCannibal #ScienceIsAHoax #TheEarthIsFlat I think the fact that I just quoted a bunch of hashtags makes me fully woke too. Someone put an end to this conspiracy of crazy lunatic vegan conspirators!
Interesting that he brought up “Animals being kept in stressful conditions…undermining their immune system.” Sounds like what happened for most of 2020 to all humans 🤔
Absolutely! He actually brings up some valid points against factory farming, something that all the speakers for the other side couldn't do. He did 100% of the heavylifting for the opposition haha, quite hilarious
@@lozzybozzy234 Do a search for carbon neutrality and pasture reared cattle and you should find something of interest from scholarly papers to news articles. I should add that "tiny amounts" does not accord with testing done nationally or for a more colloquial example the carbon soil testing done by Harry Metcalfe on his channel " Harry's Farm".
Monoculture and factory farms are the issue. Cover crops, regenerative agriculture and such could reverse the damage to topsoil and help sequester carbon!
If regenerative agriculture were to challenge the mainstream food system, it would run into some hard physical limits. Converting the beef industry, at current levels of demand, entirely to a grass- and crop-forage feeding system would require increasing the total size of American beef herds by 23 million cows, or 30 percent, according to a recent article in the respected science journal Environmental Research Letters. And that increase, were it even possible, would have monumental consequences for both greenhouse gas outputs and land use. But there simply isn’t enough land in the U.S. for that many grazers. At best, beef production would have to decrease by 39 percent and potentially as much as 73 percent. Framed that way, grass-fed grazing, especially if scaled, doesn’t seem likely to regenerate many ecosystems-indeed, it would likely require deforestation, as is the case in Brazil, where the clear-cutting of the Amazon is driven both by soy plantations for feedlot and factory farm animal feed and by the need for grazing space for grass-fed cattle. And as the Environmental Research Letters article argued, even temporary overgrazing can lead to long-term and perhaps irreversible ecological degradation.
Did he just singlehandedly conduct a debate? Well said. I suppose it is commendable to point out the flaws in your own side instead of trying to ignore them.
@@rodjacksonx Of course it is. If you're conducting debates properly, you want the audience and participants to grow closer to the truth, not win some point-scoring power game of ideas.
@@asytippyy352 - No, that's NOT the point of a debate! Join a school debate club; you'll inevitably have to argue stances you don't actually agree with, and you'll be expected to behave as if you did, because you actually score points and win or lose based on how well you argue! The ENTIRE point of formal debating is to exercise your lawyerly skills of being able to fully invest in and debate a point, WHICHEVER WAY IT IS, as *strongly* as you can. The WAY you get the audience to "grow closer to the truth" is by presenting EACH side as vigorously as possible, not by deciding, "well, I'm personally against this, so I'll water down its arguments." That's called an echo chamber, and that's what gets created when debaters can't even argue their opponent's side in good faith.
@@rodjacksonx well said. In fact the speaker said at the start that he was given this side of the argument. Its obvious he would ordinarily lean towards the other side.
The organisers made a mistake selecting Mr. Stevenson as presenting for the opposition, and Mr. Stevenson made a mistake of not using the best arguments for the oppositional perspective, even if he may not agree with them.
I was very empathetic towards these arguments 15 years ago and went vegan for 4 years and then a vegetarian for 5. I've been back to eating meat for about 4 years now and feel better than ever. I'll always be torn between my conscience and my health on this subject.
@@veganix6757 Or we can kill animals and not worry about the environment. Never forget that society is a pointless endeavor. We'll either suffer/die out before we reach an amazing peak or become borderline robotic watching numbers go up for absolutely no reason besides our primitive desire to move on.
Don't blame Oxford for the fact that your side was too scared to invite cannibals to speak up for eating luxurious human meat on occasion. Pretty much everyone else in their right mind including Joe Shmoe figures "ok, I guess eating less meat makes sense", maybe one day you'll join them, or you can join the cannibal side, if you do at least I've gotta give you the fact that you have some balls and that listening to the debate if it ever were to take place would be entertaining.
@@nunyabiznes80085 Can you mention one and explain, if you're able to, when I committed it? :) Btw you literally opened up with an ad hominem fallacy in your last comment XD
He’s right, he should have been arguing for the other side. Another smart person making logical conclusions from headline data without questioning the detail behind the headline. For example, just 11% of the world is suitable for growing crops v 60% for grazing - you can’t just replace one with the other without enormous environmental distraction to grow more crops. Another example, 14% of GHG includes methane which is part of the biogenic carbon cycle - cows eat plants which are made from carbon and burp methane which is carbon and hydrogen, the carbon eventually makes its way back into plant form and the cycle continues. No new carbon added, which is enormously different from digging up carbon that’s been collected over millions of years and putting it back into the atmosphere by burning it. He says plant based meat will be the way of the future, yet it’s ultra processed and unhealthy food… we can only hope he’s wrong for the sake of humanity. Regenerative farming can have an enormous impact on both animal agriculture and cropping, that’s where the debate should be - regen v industrial models, not meat v plants.
I raise livestock on land that cannot support crops. My animals are not confined, pastured, rotated regularly for mob grazing, and they sequester carbon, build soil, increase soil tilth, increase the land’s ability to absorb and hold water, prevent runoff and erosion, build habitat for wildlife and increase biodiversity. As a producer I am opposed to “factory farming” as he calls it, but he is wrong about how we feed “cereals” to livestock. I’d love to see him find a way to feed corn stalks and cotton seeds to humans. 8 - 10% of all greenhouse gasses are produced by human food waste, most of which is plant matter.
@@trueturp6524 no it doesn’t. We already produce more than enough food to feed every single man, woman and child on earth. There is no more farmland needed. We throw away roughly one-third of the food produced in the world for human consumption every year - approximately 1.3 billion tonnes - and most of it is plants. Some of that food waste is fed to livestock, but most of it ends up in landfills. My pig and goat herds regularly get treats from the local food bank program when they can’t find people in need to take fresh fruits and veg, which is every month. This past month alone, my livestock consumed more than 1,600 lbs of wasted pears, apples, onions. garlic, spinach, grapefruit, cabbages, tomatoes, parsnips and pumpkins. Nearly a full ton of food, discarded by one food bank in one rural region in the 7th most populous State in the nation. The idea of need and food scarcity is false. We live in a society of extreme waste; that’s how money is made. Your issue, if you are honest, is not with farmers, or livestock consumption, but with capitalism.
@@RestingBitchface7 sadly your anecdote doesnt mean much in this discussion. its a fact that 80% of all soy produced gets fed to livestock. Roughly 40% of the world grain which could be consumed by humans gets fed to livestock, the cornstalks and cottonseeds you are talking about could be used as a fertilizer, just because we dont eat them doesnt mean they are useless for humans. I think you are awfully aware thats its literally impossible to satisfy the worldwide hunger for animal flesh with a few small grazing herds.
Most crops go to feed animals so if we all went vegan we would only decrease the demand for crops freeing up enormous amounts of land and resources currently dedicated to animal farming. Then you also have the ethical issue of it being immoral to kill animals needlessly for taste pleasure.
A couple points that popped into my head while listening: 1.) How does the calculation that we can "feed another 3.5 billion people with the cereals used for animal food" work? Is it just based on caloric intake? Is this man aware that humans cannot subsist on grain alone? Meat offers more than just efficient, calory-dense sustenance. We evolved to be reliant on animal fats and proteins aswell as plant-based nutrition, we are omnivores. This 3.5 billion figure strikes me as very misleading. 2.) Every anti-meat eating activist (and let's be honest, Stevenson counts as one) I've ever heard talks about how we will "eventually grow beyond eating meat" within this century, or the next, or maybe the 23rd, yadda yadda. Have any of them ever considered that future cloning technology and tools like CRISPR could enable an infinite supply of lab-grown meat that is farmed without a central nervous system, so no cruelty has to be involved and no farmland has to be ruined? What I'm trying to say is that it is very presumtuous to make broad statements into the future like that without any evidence of a trend. We don't know where technology will be in 50 years. 3.) If eating less meat is so healthy, how come archaeologists can consistenly prove that the first human farmers lost about 10-12 centimeters (roughly 5 inches) in average height in comparison and showed extensive signs of malnourishment that just weren't present in the same way on their hunter-gatherer counterparts? We as a species didn't gain that height back until the industrial revolution enabled mass farming of animals. Why are there cultures (e.g. Inuit, asiatic steppe nomads) that almost exclusively consume meat, animal fat and dairy products and do just fine, but there is no purely vegetarian culture on earth to my knowledge? This ties back to point 1. How do we ensure a balanced diet of essential amino acids, fatty acids and other nutrients that are only present in animal products without said animal products?
They wouldn't feed the cereals and grains to humans Ir wouldn't be suitable. Pretty common sense I'd u thought about it for a second ud have guessed the space used to grow the food for the animals will be dramatically decreased
Here is a fact relevant here: Eat a variety of foods free from slaughter (which includes cereals) in *high enough calories* , Consume B12 directly from the organisms that make it (bacteria and archaea), and you'll be fine as a general rule of thumb. So if calorie is what he talks about then it is a good point to raise.
I’ll continue eating meat, even if I have to hunt it; damned if I’ll eat a piece of meat from a lab, or plant-based burgers! Stupidity on a Global Scale!!
@@AfroGannon it’s completely unnatural and any human meddling with such things is prone to unforeseen health problems down the line, soya isn’t a good alternative to meat, for the reasons stated by one of the opposers in this debate; there is a historical tyranny to making the peasants have the crappy food and the elites getting all the meat; are you aware of how the Kings and Lords of old would possess the land purely so they could control the populace and force them to eat whatever plants and insects they could find, and tax them for the privilege; that’s why the poor would resort to poaching animals because eating vegetables kept them starved and subservient; meat would increase their general health, which was the last thing the Lord of the land would want! Do you think meat is oppressive? Historically it has been but only when it’s denied to the general population by the elites who only ever pretend to like vegetables, while behind closed doors they’re busy eating meat off the spit!! We’re being coerced into eating food that is simply inadequate for our needs; combine that with the incoming population collapse and believe me, hunting will rapidly replace farming again as humans scramble to survive!!
@@GloryCarrier22 In terms of things produced in labs, are you opposed to that completely? Are you against modern medicine? Do you think we shouldn't use toothpaste because it's unnatural? We are not living in the Feudal era, reducing our consumption of meat doesn't equate to the rich eating loads of meat and the poor not. I've been a vegan for 5 years, I run a lot and play tennis. There is no difference in my ability at these physical pursuits compared to when I was a vegetarian. The NHS and nutritionists will tell you that you can get everything you need in terms of nutrients with a vegan diet.
@@lozzybozzy234 generally yes, I am opposed to most things produced in a lab, since such research and biomedical knowledge is fatally flawed; the recent pandemic has served to highlight this; am I against modern medicine; in some, maybe too many, ways; the toothpaste issue is a good example, well done and thanks for highlighting it; most toothpaste on the market IS unnatural and isn’t even required for oral hygiene; I use a charcoal toothpaste if I use one, and thoroughly brush with a soft toothbrush; And we most certainly are looking at a feudal system in the future, brought about by the Great Reset and the WEF; you only need some applied common sense to see that…..but seeing as how you’ve already bought into that it’s probably futile to try and persuade you otherwise; are you young? You sound it, naive too I’m willing to bet…..
So why not sign up to work in a slaughterhouse get some practice? You can replace the marginalized workers who don’t want to be there plus hear the gas chambers screams or see the cows squirming after being shot. How about ripping off legs or wings of hens! Do you think genetically engineering animals, giving them antibodies, drugs is natural? What about living in a shed in filth with thousand of others? Most soy is fed to animals yet you eat them. Its a little confusing where you’re coming from
I don't know why people are genuinely surprised by this. He's an animal rights advocate who, when asked if we should get rid of meat entirely (the topic of debate), his position is "no". It's obvious, though unfortunate to be sure, that he'd have to spend half of his allotted time reassuring the side he temporarily deviated from that he wasn't their adversary beyond this debate. He's a rational, principled and honest man. Well done 👏
I agree that factory farming is bad. It also takes away one of the greatest pleasures I have known in life - Having a personal relationship with my food. (either plant OR animal based) I literally LOVE watching my livestock grow strong and healthy. I love knowing that what I eat led a happy, stress free life and was of Olympic Quality before I had them put in my freezer.
They are not 'stock' they are sentient earthlings who you bred into existence and kill when very young for your personal profit. Seems a bit evil really.
Sounds exactly what the argument of the other side amounts to, if it's fine to farm and slaughter other animals for taste pleasure, why not other humans?
Oh, you are mistaken, it's part 6 and there was only one advocating meat you heard, this one clearly doesn't understand in which side of the debate he is...
As long as my factory farmed meat is clean and healthy I don't mind it at all... Factory chickens may have a short life but if their meat doesn't hurt me its fine, affordable, and tasty
Paradoxically, the opening of his speech was a better argument for moving beyond meat then all the previous speakers who were arguing for that position.
There shouldn't be a reduction in meat consumption, there should be a increase. But make the practices better, better lives for animals, outdoors grazing and regenerative farming. Like the planet has been doing for, oh, like hundreds of millions of years.
Arguing that "we eat animals who eat plants to grow, so why not just eat plants" is like saying "we eat plants who need dirt and water to grow, so why not just eat dirt and water." You often hear this "cut out the middle-man" argument, but it just shows how much the person doesn't understand biology and nutrition.
Having not watched the clips of the entire debate, I’m an unswayed viewer- with an open question to both sides. I am slightly biased, having been brought up as a UK meat eater, and stubbornly Occident in giving up what might be a future luxury… What is the consensus on either side? Is it fast food conglomerate decadence that has imprisoned so many animals? Could we actually sustain our global meat consumption, if we tariffed more environmentally damaging natural-resource based giants? Let me know your thoughts
This debate was set up terribly. Was the debate over 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..
Thank you Gentlemen for allowing us the "modest amount" of meat consumption! Wow, I believe the "proposition side" was mistaken here with the "opposition side"!
Some interesting comments from Peter Stevenson. I don't think even the most ardent of meat eaters believe Industrial livestock farming is good for the environment. This is not devalue the comments of many but from my experience, industrial plant farming is no better, but for different reasons. Whilst it may have in theory less emissions, these claims could be disputed when you account for all factors, for example the emissions from extra machinery that is needed to farm crops against the carbon sequestering from grass raised ruminates. I think many plant diet advocates seems to forget the basic rules of nature, that in order to create all forms of life, you need death, crops can only take life from the soil, at least with animal foods, you have abilities to give back to soil health and create a circle, changing that is risking the natural order of things for the past few millions of years. I suppose vegan will come up with arguments that we could use human manure, hydroponics, lab crops and these various cultured meat products that Mr Peter Stevenson references. However who's to say these will get the outcomes they hope. I'm not sure I want to trust my nutrition to a large corporation making fake meat in a factory or lab (is this really any better than an industrial livestock feedlot in the USA) At least by buying all my meat from a small local farm that is pasture for life animal, I am buying into a known quantity that has fed and sustained me and my ancestors for thousands of years. We are once again messing with natural order of things. I think the truth is, we need take a step away from the idealist ideas that vegan promote and actually think about this from a realist perspective. There is a lot of humans on the planet and the factory farming system, for better or worse has become the only way we have found to fed the vast human population, it is by no mean perfect but it is a system which has effectively ended famines (besides politically caused famines) Historically speaking this is an amazing achievement. Yet we have seen there are better ways. My point is you can often replace one evil, with another that could be even worse, just because a few have decided to project their emotional framework and in some cases politics onto another animal species.
Basically the comment section of this debate: Person A: supports eating meat/plants and thinks it's healthy Person B: says what person A is saying is utter nonsense and research has shown he is wrong Person A: retorts by saying that person B got his research wrong and needs to look up real research and that you will be perfectly healthy by not eating meat/plants Person A and B keep going back and forth without any real results from their discussion. At the same time, in the same comment thread person C, D, F are cursing at each other and having a similiar conversation. Come on people, you aren't getting anywhere with this, stop wasting your life commenting in a youtube comment section and arguing with people you don't even know...
We don't need to stop or reduce meat consumption globally we need to stop factory farming and fast food and junk food consumption globally and go back to the natural omnivorous diet that humanity will always be which will improve both human and animal lives and echo systems will naturally repair themselves and people in the northern hemisphere will always have to eat meat it is more essential for Europeans and the Russians and siberians and people living in northern Asia and the Himalayas and the innuit people in northern Canada and the native Americans to have more meat in our diets then those people living in or South of the equator because of winter and living in the frozen tundra
GREED is the problem. Not you and I (the average person just trying to live their lives without accumulating gross amounts of wealth and power whilst impoverishing millions of others). Big pharma and big food companies, strangely owned by the same few mega corporations, are the cause of most of the problems in the world today. I love eating meat and 100% believe it is a vital part of being healthy. I can eat less factory farmed (which I think is horrendous) meat, dairy etc but until mega corporations are dissolved and what we all do individually on a daily basis won’t have much impact on the real causes of the world’s issues.
You get this guy for the opposition?! Clearly the organizers are putting their thumb on the scale for the proposition. Why didn’t you get Alan Savory and anyone from the Low Carb Down Under group? Clearly you didn’t try very hard to get a solid case for the opposition.
Compare the environmental and social impact of alcohol protection vs animal production. Shouldn't we cease alcohol production long before meat production.
This almost makes up for the fact that they used a meat eater to oppose consumption of meat. He would have been a vegan arguing for meat consumption and it would shown that oxford union is not that biased towards meat eating (sadly they are).
While an interesting and hopeful meat alternative, for myself included; cultured meat would not currently be economically feasible enough to buy as a consumer or manufacture as a company to be able to entirely replace the meat industry and it's scale and demand from the world. Cultured meat also relies on Fetal Bovine Serum which is a product dependent on the meat industry, as it can only be acquired from the slaughter of pregnant bovine, so is not really cruelty free. An article 'Lab-Grown Cultivated Meat At Scale' by 'The Counter' clearly presents an in-depth analysis of UC Berkeley Chemical Engineer David Humbird which includes these and an additional two years worth of work organizing the obstacles cultivated meat faces. Not affiliated, it's just a really detailed break-down that makes his scientific study accessible.
Peter Stevenson mentions the inefficiency of producing grain to feed animals. He could equally have mentioned the huge amount of prime arable land that is being used to produce biofuels. This mis-use of precious arable land is an extraordinarily inefficient way to produce energy and only viable through heavy subsidies funded by the tax payer.
regenerative farming has been debunked, and factory farming is the most sustainable system to meet the demand, which is why it is so unethical. but this speech was well constructed anyway, so it'll get a like from me. praying for a vegan world and cell-cultured meats.
This is the third speaker talking about plant based meat substitutes. The issue is that those are mostly composed of starches and unsaturated fatty acids which are known to cause all sorts of dietary ailments. i really don't think this is the way forward.
Easily the best speaker on this panel, though it's ironic he was placed on the Opposition side while these are arguments I would have made for the Proposition.
It isn’t like Oxford university had an agenda here was it???? This is not someone arguing against the motion at all - he made that clear from the start.
Many of these arguments are not true in Norway. Norway has the worlds strictest animal welfare laws. The animals don't suffer as much. I think really strict rules are the way to go.
What he is not mentioning here is that crop production in terms of yeild can feed the world many times over, even with production for animal feed. The crop yeild of Canada, American and Russia can feed the whole planet and feed all the cows... People starve because of market manipulation of foodstuffs not because there is a lack of food
However I disagree with plant based protein as a substitute for meats. I have 28 plant allergies and multiple chemical sensitivities. I need a mostly carnivore organically produced diet.
Humans can't effectively use most food ruminates consume so it's not really that inefficient. That said, bioreactor protein is probably coming to the shelves someday.
why is 2/8 missing? hmm .. 6/8 (this video) was the best argument on the proposition side .. weird he was talking on the opposition side .. in other words we had 2 arguments in opposition and 5 in proposition .. that's quite unballanced
"Regenerative" grazing reduces the harm to the environment that is caused by ruminant animal agriculture, but it does not eliminate it. The methane produced by ruminants is 20-80 times more potent as a green house gas than CO2! The better option is Veganic Farming. Google it.
Stress decreases animal production, if farming practices are creating undue stress they will fail to be profitable. Imagine the pain, fear and terror of a rabbit as the tractor bears down on its home then destroys a their home and maims the family; many of these will suffer slow painful deaths.
If the world went vegetarian there would be no forests left. How do you think you feed over 3 billion people? You need lots of land. For such educated people, I find the follow through lacking.
One doesn’t need a sensitive BS counter to clearly see that Oxford have already made up their mind on this subject. It is once again up to the individual to critique the very presentation, and discount this whole ‘discussion’
Don't display part 2, and part 4 is basically arguing in the affirmative? If this isn't bias, it does a good job making it look like it, regardless of which side you support
This is not a debate, this is typical college indoctrination disguised as a debate. A telling admission: 0:21 "Ambika, you said at the beginning you were a bit surprised that I'm on this side of the debate, yes I think I am too, but the organizers insisted I speak on this side of the debate." - Peter Stevenson
Hahaa missing part 2 on the pro meat side and now got a "plant" on the pro meat side. What a con of a debate😅 should've got a regenerative farmer on, they'd destroy the entire vegan arguement hahaa
They keep placing human emotions on animals. Now, I agree that we need to stop feeding unnatural foods (or reduce it greatly), and our farm animals should be in a more natural environment, a better balance The cereals fed to animals is not foods humans would consume. Co2 emissions is what feeds their plants, and why the planet is getting greener.
@@stellabystarlight3137 It can be done. I do it on a small pension, while also feeding my 2 physically disabled sons. I will do without fancy clothes and cars in order to stay healthy and keep a roof over our heads.
He made 2 great arguments there towards the end and I agree with him on protein complex production in the lab there's a UA-cam channel where a bio hacked has made deer milk producing yeast, spider silk yeast, and quail egg yeast, THC and many others are also possible but many of the proteins are under patent from big corporations so like cow milk protein synthesis is under patent. Just to be a contrarian, industry farming does have a lower environmental footprint then traditional farming, and is more scalable and is providing cheaper more nutritious(vitamin fed) food.
It's not balanced because there's pretty much no one in their right mind arguing against the notion. Try to find me one in the whole of youtube, or other platforms if you prefer.
Wasn't this guy supposed to be PRO-meat? Then why did he spend over half his time talking about meat's "problems?" Talk about not debating in good faith!
With allies like Peter, who needs enemies...
😂
EXXXXXXACTLY
He made it clear the first minute that he's not an ally, lol. #TeamSports #YoureEitherWithUsOrAgainstUs
he is the only person in the debate that actually spoke truth and used facts. He is no the enemy, he is the answer.
It's seems that somone forgot which side he has to play on this debate lol
Not really. He doesn’t think we should move beyond meat… so he’s on the right side
Someone here forgot to follow his script. Reprimand him, immediately, thinking for yourself not allowed, off with his head!!!!!
Sometimes, you don't have to take a side, you can walk the middle line. You can be a moderate like this guy (even tho the format of the debate is opposition vs proponent).
This was odd. Almost like the opposition was sabotaged by two weak opposers.
Thank God for Mikhaila though. She was the best in my opinion.
The only thing she could realistically claim was that some very sick people need to have access to an elimination diet so they can live at least a little bit longer.
@@carinaekstrom1 she wouldn't have gotten sick in the first place if she had been eating only or mostly Ruminent meat. Do you realize how many diseased people there are? How many could be prevented if more people had access to red meat? Our HC system would not be overburdened if more ate mostly or only meat
@@KotoriOnWheels Research studies show that the less meat people eat, the healthier they are, with the occasional exception of certain fish. Worst is processed meats, then comes red meat. Mikhaila is a lazy, or biased researcher.
She got sick because there's a dysbiosis in her gut microbiome. Also she's been on so many medications that she's in a viscious circle that she can't get out of. It's not normal human physiology to not be able to eat plants. The Inuit eat as many plants as they can get their hands on. Mikhaila is now discovering that she can't even eat beef. Too many autoimmune issues still, so she's trying mostly lamb. If she doesn't get her gut dysbiosis in order she will die very early.
@@carinaekstrom1 you are not up on the research. Red meat is the most highly nutritious and absorbable food on the planet. Evolution doesn't lie. And you need to read more.
@@KotoriOnWheels I most certainly am very much up on the research and you are wrong about meat. Heme iron, wrong type of vit A, cancercausing protein, heart disease, diabetes, IGF1, TMAO, no thanks.
I am the healthiest person I know my age (63), and I have not had meat for 52 years.
Ok I agree that factory farming is not a sustainable practice...but this guy is effectively batting for the other team in a debate....
Regenerative farming is a completely sustainable practice which can be individualised at the level of local communities and used on non-arable land. It can promoted healthy local economic development away from large distributors and boost community involvement. That's something that industrial monocrop farming can't do. Regenerative ag also sequesters carbon into the soil. Furthermore the problem we run into is taking meat/fat out of the diet means that we need to replace it with less nutrient dense foods such as plants and that leads to their own bunch of problems. The climate issue is more about the entire production cycle analysis of animal based farming and then not taking into account the whole production cycle of the other industries. I haven't gotten around to read the latest ipcc on this so maybe they addressed it.
Not sure what it took him 6 mins to talk about why factory farming was bad...
Wrong. A meta analysis show it can only reduce carbon by 20-60%. Which only lasts for 13 years. It’s improvement but not the best. Best way is not eating any animals. 50% of worlds land surface is for agriculture and if we all went vegan 75% less agricultural land would be needed. However if we just transferred out of factory farming to only regen then there wouldn’t be enough land on earth for that. Grazing animals are leading cause of deforestation.
My uncle farms beef cattle and uses them to restore the soil via feeding the activated charcoal.
@@veganix6757 Atmospheric carbon isn't a problem because it doesn't drive climate change. Orbital position does.
@@managerialelitetoaster3456 u can restore soil by not using land to be cleared to feed farmed animals to eat
@@managerialelitetoaster3456 A study titled Grazed and Confused, published by the University of Oxford in 2017, looked at the environmental impact of grass-fed cows. While lead researcher Dr Tara Garnett accepted that certain grazing managements can put carbon into the soil, she added that these would at best amount to 20-60 per cent of the emissions the animals use in the first place.
What’s more, the soil reaches soil carbon equilibrium after a few decades, meaning it cannot sequester any more carbon. At this point, none of the emissions from the animals would be offset, and farmers would need to either use more land or stop farming.
Grass-fed cows have also been found to have a greater environmental impact compared to grain-fed due to increased resource use, as well as emissions from the farming process and animals themselves.
Imagine a defense attorney in a murder trial saying, “I think my client did it, and I know he did it, but at least he did it with a gun and not a knife.”
That’s the kind of defense argument this amounts to.
😂😂😅😅
i think it would be temporary insanity plea mate
No it doesn't.
And the funniest part is this guy made probably the most sense out of all.
At the start of his "opposition", he said the organizers of the event wanted him on the side against the measure. Sounds like they and he both stacked the deck against the opposition to the proposition.
This is opposition to the proposal? Has Oxford gone fully woke too?
#TeamCannibal #ScienceIsAHoax #TheEarthIsFlat
I think the fact that I just quoted a bunch of hashtags makes me fully woke too. Someone put an end to this conspiracy of crazy lunatic vegan conspirators!
Interesting that he brought up “Animals being kept in stressful conditions…undermining their immune system.” Sounds like what happened for most of 2020 to all humans 🤔
Absolutely! He actually brings up some valid points against factory farming, something that all the speakers for the other side couldn't do. He did 100% of the heavylifting for the opposition haha, quite hilarious
Every technology will be tried on humans. It's always just a matter of time.
whaaat?
looks like you're one of those conspiracy theorists who wants to kill granny!
@@TheyCalledMeT obviously, any question put forth means we want to kill people. You must be so smart to have figured that out. 👏👏
some of us enjoyed the peace of the pandemic
Pasture raised cattle is carbon neutral and the pastures themselves lock away enormous amounts of carbon.
Pastures lock away tiny amounts of carbon compared to re-wilded land. Where have you got your figures?
@@lozzybozzy234 Do a search for carbon neutrality and pasture reared cattle and you should find something of interest from scholarly papers to news articles. I should add that "tiny amounts" does not accord with testing done nationally or for a more colloquial example the carbon soil testing done by Harry Metcalfe on his channel " Harry's Farm".
Monoculture and factory farms are the issue. Cover crops, regenerative agriculture and such could reverse the damage to topsoil and help sequester carbon!
If regenerative agriculture were to challenge the mainstream food system, it would run into some hard physical limits. Converting the beef industry, at current levels of demand, entirely to a grass- and crop-forage feeding system would require increasing the total size of American beef herds by 23 million cows, or 30 percent, according to a recent article in the respected science journal Environmental Research Letters. And that increase, were it even possible, would have monumental consequences for both greenhouse gas outputs and land use. But there simply isn’t enough land in the U.S. for that many grazers. At best, beef production would have to decrease by 39 percent and potentially as much as 73 percent. Framed that way, grass-fed grazing, especially if scaled, doesn’t seem likely to regenerate many ecosystems-indeed, it would likely require deforestation, as is the case in Brazil, where the clear-cutting of the Amazon is driven both by soy plantations for feedlot and factory farm animal feed and by the need for grazing space for grass-fed cattle. And as the Environmental Research Letters article argued, even temporary overgrazing can lead to long-term and perhaps irreversible ecological degradation.
Funny how the best argument for the motion came from the side against the motion.
This guy was the best speaker.
Yes, he made the clearest convincing arguments in this debate.
Really they couldn't find anyone better than this guy to defend meat eating?
That's what's come of Oxford, apparently.
Did he just singlehandedly conduct a debate? Well said. I suppose it is commendable to point out the flaws in your own side instead of trying to ignore them.
Not during a debate it's not
Great observation. Rationally capable of seeing the pro and cons an a topic is not something we hear much these days.
@@rodjacksonx Of course it is. If you're conducting debates properly, you want the audience and participants to grow closer to the truth, not win some point-scoring power game of ideas.
@@asytippyy352 - No, that's NOT the point of a debate! Join a school debate club; you'll inevitably have to argue stances you don't actually agree with, and you'll be expected to behave as if you did, because you actually score points and win or lose based on how well you argue!
The ENTIRE point of formal debating is to exercise your lawyerly skills of being able to fully invest in and debate a point, WHICHEVER WAY IT IS, as *strongly* as you can. The WAY you get the audience to "grow closer to the truth" is by presenting EACH side as vigorously as possible, not by deciding, "well, I'm personally against this, so I'll water down its arguments."
That's called an echo chamber, and that's what gets created when debaters can't even argue their opponent's side in good faith.
@@rodjacksonx well said. In fact the speaker said at the start that he was given this side of the argument. Its obvious he would ordinarily lean towards the other side.
The organisers made a mistake selecting Mr. Stevenson as presenting for the opposition, and Mr. Stevenson made a mistake of not using the best arguments for the oppositional perspective, even if he may not agree with them.
He was almost spot on.
Carnist only think of their interest and not non humans best interest. Vile.
Where’s part 2?
I was very empathetic towards these arguments 15 years ago and went vegan for 4 years and then a vegetarian for 5. I've been back to eating meat for about 4 years now and feel better than ever. I'll always be torn between my conscience and my health on this subject.
You can be perfectly healthy without eating any animals
@@veganix6757 Or we can kill animals and not worry about the environment. Never forget that society is a pointless endeavor. We'll either suffer/die out before we reach an amazing peak or become borderline robotic watching numbers go up for absolutely no reason besides our primitive desire to move on.
@@depressedcheems9961 why is it wrong to kill humans but not animals when u don’t need to kill neither? Name the morally relevant difference.
@@veganix6757 it's not inherently wrong to kill humans. It's just bias evolution hammered into us.
@@depressedcheems9961 I’m against killing humans when it’s unnecessary and animals. So why you think it’s ok to kill animals unnecessarily
When you entered the exam hall and found that you practiced for the wrong subject. He certainly did't prepare from the opposition view.
Is it just me or was this debate 5 for proposition Vs 2 for opposition?
Just say what you really want Oxford: Eating bugs is the way forward.
Don't blame Oxford for the fact that your side was too scared to invite cannibals to speak up for eating luxurious human meat on occasion. Pretty much everyone else in their right mind including Joe Shmoe figures "ok, I guess eating less meat makes sense", maybe one day you'll join them, or you can join the cannibal side, if you do at least I've gotta give you the fact that you have some balls and that listening to the debate if it ever were to take place would be entertaining.
@@SourceChan I will assume English is not your first language but that aside, your use of logical fallacies tells me that you're not worth debating.
@@nunyabiznes80085 Can you mention one and explain, if you're able to, when I committed it? :) Btw you literally opened up with an ad hominem fallacy in your last comment XD
He’s right, he should have been arguing for the other side. Another smart person making logical conclusions from headline data without questioning the detail behind the headline. For example, just 11% of the world is suitable for growing crops v 60% for grazing - you can’t just replace one with the other without enormous environmental distraction to grow more crops. Another example, 14% of GHG includes methane which is part of the biogenic carbon cycle - cows eat plants which are made from carbon and burp methane which is carbon and hydrogen, the carbon eventually makes its way back into plant form and the cycle continues. No new carbon added, which is enormously different from digging up carbon that’s been collected over millions of years and putting it back into the atmosphere by burning it. He says plant based meat will be the way of the future, yet it’s ultra processed and unhealthy food… we can only hope he’s wrong for the sake of humanity. Regenerative farming can have an enormous impact on both animal agriculture and cropping, that’s where the debate should be - regen v industrial models, not meat v plants.
you do understand that keeping animals to slaughter and eat them needs a lot more crops than humans would ever need if we would just eat plants ?
I raise livestock on land that cannot support crops. My animals are not confined, pastured, rotated regularly for mob grazing, and they sequester carbon, build soil, increase soil tilth, increase the land’s ability to absorb and hold water, prevent runoff and erosion, build habitat for wildlife and increase biodiversity.
As a producer I am opposed to “factory farming” as he calls it, but he is wrong about how we feed “cereals” to livestock. I’d love to see him find a way to feed corn stalks and cotton seeds to humans.
8 - 10% of all greenhouse gasses are produced by human food waste, most of which is plant matter.
@@trueturp6524 no it doesn’t. We already produce more than enough food to feed every single man, woman and child on earth. There is no more farmland needed. We throw away roughly one-third of the food produced in the world for human consumption every year - approximately 1.3 billion tonnes - and most of it is plants.
Some of that food waste is fed to livestock, but most of it ends up in landfills. My pig and goat herds regularly get treats from the local food bank program when they can’t find people in need to take fresh fruits and veg, which is every month. This past month alone, my livestock consumed more than 1,600 lbs of wasted pears, apples, onions. garlic, spinach, grapefruit, cabbages, tomatoes, parsnips and pumpkins. Nearly a full ton of food, discarded by one food bank in one rural region in the 7th most populous State in the nation.
The idea of need and food scarcity is false. We live in a society of extreme waste; that’s how money is made.
Your issue, if you are honest, is not with farmers, or livestock consumption, but with capitalism.
@@RestingBitchface7 sadly your anecdote doesnt mean much in this discussion. its a fact that 80% of all soy produced gets fed to livestock. Roughly 40% of the world grain which could be consumed by humans gets fed to livestock, the cornstalks and cottonseeds you are talking about could be used as a fertilizer, just because we dont eat them doesnt mean they are useless for humans. I think you are awfully aware thats its literally impossible to satisfy the worldwide hunger for animal flesh with a few small grazing herds.
Most crops go to feed animals so if we all went vegan we would only decrease the demand for crops freeing up enormous amounts of land and resources currently dedicated to animal farming. Then you also have the ethical issue of it being immoral to kill animals needlessly for taste pleasure.
A couple points that popped into my head while listening:
1.) How does the calculation that we can "feed another 3.5 billion people with the cereals used for animal food" work? Is it just based on caloric intake? Is this man aware that humans cannot subsist on grain alone? Meat offers more than just efficient, calory-dense sustenance. We evolved to be reliant on animal fats and proteins aswell as plant-based nutrition, we are omnivores. This 3.5 billion figure strikes me as very misleading.
2.) Every anti-meat eating activist (and let's be honest, Stevenson counts as one) I've ever heard talks about how we will "eventually grow beyond eating meat" within this century, or the next, or maybe the 23rd, yadda yadda. Have any of them ever considered that future cloning technology and tools like CRISPR could enable an infinite supply of lab-grown meat that is farmed without a central nervous system, so no cruelty has to be involved and no farmland has to be ruined? What I'm trying to say is that it is very presumtuous to make broad statements into the future like that without any evidence of a trend. We don't know where technology will be in 50 years.
3.) If eating less meat is so healthy, how come archaeologists can consistenly prove that the first human farmers lost about 10-12 centimeters (roughly 5 inches) in average height in comparison and showed extensive signs of malnourishment that just weren't present in the same way on their hunter-gatherer counterparts? We as a species didn't gain that height back until the industrial revolution enabled mass farming of animals. Why are there cultures (e.g. Inuit, asiatic steppe nomads) that almost exclusively consume meat, animal fat and dairy products and do just fine, but there is no purely vegetarian culture on earth to my knowledge? This ties back to point 1. How do we ensure a balanced diet of essential amino acids, fatty acids and other nutrients that are only present in animal products without said animal products?
They wouldn't feed the cereals and grains to humans Ir wouldn't be suitable. Pretty common sense I'd u thought about it for a second ud have guessed the space used to grow the food for the animals will be dramatically decreased
Here is a fact relevant here:
Eat a variety of foods free from slaughter (which includes cereals) in *high enough calories* , Consume B12 directly from the organisms that make it (bacteria and archaea), and you'll be fine as a general rule of thumb.
So if calorie is what he talks about then it is a good point to raise.
I’ll continue eating meat, even if I have to hunt it; damned if I’ll eat a piece of meat from a lab, or plant-based burgers! Stupidity on a Global Scale!!
If I may, what is the stupidity at play in lab, plant based meat?
Please & thank you 🙏
@@AfroGannon it’s completely unnatural and any human meddling with such things is prone to unforeseen health problems down the line, soya isn’t a good alternative to meat, for the reasons stated by one of the opposers in this debate; there is a historical tyranny to making the peasants have the crappy food and the elites getting all the meat; are you aware of how the Kings and Lords of old would possess the land purely so they could control the populace and force them to eat whatever plants and insects they could find, and tax them for the privilege; that’s why the poor would resort to poaching animals because eating vegetables kept them starved and subservient; meat would increase their general health, which was the last thing the Lord of the land would want! Do you think meat is oppressive? Historically it has been but only when it’s denied to the general population by the elites who only ever pretend to like vegetables, while behind closed doors they’re busy eating meat off the spit!!
We’re being coerced into eating food that is simply inadequate for our needs; combine that with the incoming population collapse and believe me, hunting will rapidly replace farming again as humans scramble to survive!!
@@GloryCarrier22 In terms of things produced in labs, are you opposed to that completely? Are you against modern medicine? Do you think we shouldn't use toothpaste because it's unnatural?
We are not living in the Feudal era, reducing our consumption of meat doesn't equate to the rich eating loads of meat and the poor not. I've been a vegan for 5 years, I run a lot and play tennis. There is no difference in my ability at these physical pursuits compared to when I was a vegetarian. The NHS and nutritionists will tell you that you can get everything you need in terms of nutrients with a vegan diet.
@@lozzybozzy234 generally yes, I am opposed to most things produced in a lab, since such research and biomedical knowledge is fatally flawed; the recent pandemic has served to highlight this; am I against modern medicine; in some, maybe too many, ways; the toothpaste issue is a good example, well done and thanks for highlighting it; most toothpaste on the market IS unnatural and isn’t even required for oral hygiene; I use a charcoal toothpaste if I use one, and thoroughly brush with a soft toothbrush;
And we most certainly are looking at a feudal system in the future, brought about by the Great Reset and the WEF; you only need some applied common sense to see that…..but seeing as how you’ve already bought into that it’s probably futile to try and persuade you otherwise; are you young? You sound it, naive too I’m willing to bet…..
So why not sign up to work in a slaughterhouse get some practice? You can replace the marginalized workers who don’t want to be there plus hear the gas chambers screams or see the cows squirming after being shot. How about ripping off legs or wings of hens!
Do you think genetically engineering animals, giving them antibodies, drugs is natural? What about living in a shed in filth with thousand of others? Most soy is fed to animals yet you eat them. Its a little confusing where you’re coming from
I don't know why people are genuinely surprised by this. He's an animal rights advocate who, when asked if we should get rid of meat entirely (the topic of debate), his position is "no". It's obvious, though unfortunate to be sure, that he'd have to spend half of his allotted time reassuring the side he temporarily deviated from that he wasn't their adversary beyond this debate. He's a rational, principled and honest man. Well done 👏
I agree that factory farming is bad. It also takes away one of the greatest pleasures I have known in life - Having a personal relationship with my food. (either plant OR animal based) I literally LOVE watching my livestock grow strong and healthy. I love knowing that what I eat led a happy, stress free life and was of Olympic Quality before I had them put in my freezer.
They are not 'stock' they are sentient earthlings who you bred into existence and kill when very young for your personal profit. Seems a bit evil really.
Ok Jeffrey Dahmer....
This guy is speaking an incomplete truth, you should all see the channel What I’ve learned’s video about the debate of the production of meat
What I’ve learned does really biased research and often misinterprets his sources… not the best way to get information, be careful :)
He has been proved multiple times of his association with meat industry and his cherry-picking data. Stop falling for conformation bias, people.
Maybe when someone wants to argue for the opposition.... you should let them.
Lmao, you think the guy was told what to say? Bwhahahaha
After hearing this I'm determined to abandon meat and went to a Soylent Green diet to reduce the carbon footprints and to save the planet.
XD !!
(I see what you did there)👍
Sounds exactly what the argument of the other side amounts to, if it's fine to farm and slaughter other animals for taste pleasure, why not other humans?
how am I on part 6 and it´s only the second meat advocate I´m hearing from? Give us part two or we´ll suspect favouritism!
Oh, you are mistaken, it's part 6 and there was only one advocating meat you heard, this one clearly doesn't understand in which side of the debate he is...
@@elipop2 you’re right, it was a very underwhelming debate. I had high hopes but so many issues were either breezed over or ignored.
Optimize the system instead of demolishing the entire thing. How is that not sensible?
I think this was the best proposition of, as well as most balanced and nuanced view of the whole debate.
Congratulations to the speaker.
This wasn’t a 3 vs 4 debate, it was a 2 v 5 debate. Ridiculous how even the debates are being fixed.
The plot keeps thickening!
As long as my factory farmed meat is clean and healthy I don't mind it at all... Factory chickens may have a short life but if their meat doesn't hurt me its fine, affordable, and tasty
A very selfish viewpoint to take
I dont think you understand the debate my friend because no one is with you on that view point
@@robertwilson9299 And is also the smartest view to have.
Paradoxically, the opening of his speech was a better argument for moving beyond meat then all the previous speakers who were arguing for that position.
This guy is not the opposition, he is arguing for the end of meat. Very unfair debate.
There shouldn't be a reduction in meat consumption, there should be a increase. But make the practices better, better lives for animals, outdoors grazing and regenerative farming. Like the planet has been doing for, oh, like hundreds of millions of years.
that was ridiculous
Arguing that "we eat animals who eat plants to grow, so why not just eat plants" is like saying "we eat plants who need dirt and water to grow, so why not just eat dirt and water." You often hear this "cut out the middle-man" argument, but it just shows how much the person doesn't understand biology and nutrition.
Having not watched the clips of the entire debate, I’m an unswayed viewer- with an open question to both sides.
I am slightly biased, having been brought up as a UK meat eater, and stubbornly Occident in giving up what might be a future luxury…
What is the consensus on either side? Is it fast food conglomerate decadence that has imprisoned so many animals? Could we actually sustain our global meat consumption, if we tariffed more environmentally damaging natural-resource based giants?
Let me know your thoughts
This debate was set up terribly. Was the debate over 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..
Thank you Gentlemen for allowing us the "modest amount" of meat consumption! Wow, I believe the "proposition side" was mistaken here with the "opposition side"!
Some interesting comments from Peter Stevenson. I don't think even the most ardent of meat eaters believe Industrial livestock farming is good for the environment. This is not devalue the comments of many but from my experience, industrial plant farming is no better, but for different reasons. Whilst it may have in theory less emissions, these claims could be disputed when you account for all factors, for example the emissions from extra machinery that is needed to farm crops against the carbon sequestering from grass raised ruminates.
I think many plant diet advocates seems to forget the basic rules of nature, that in order to create all forms of life, you need death, crops can only take life from the soil, at least with animal foods, you have abilities to give back to soil health and create a circle, changing that is risking the natural order of things for the past few millions of years.
I suppose vegan will come up with arguments that we could use human manure, hydroponics, lab crops and these various cultured meat products that Mr Peter Stevenson references. However who's to say these will get the outcomes they hope. I'm not sure I want to trust my nutrition to a large corporation making fake meat in a factory or lab (is this really any better than an industrial livestock feedlot in the USA)
At least by buying all my meat from a small local farm that is pasture for life animal, I am buying into a known quantity that has fed and sustained me and my ancestors for thousands of years. We are once again messing with natural order of things.
I think the truth is, we need take a step away from the idealist ideas that vegan promote and actually think about this from a realist perspective. There is a lot of humans on the planet and the factory farming system, for better or worse has become the only way we have found to fed the vast human population, it is by no mean perfect but it is a system which has effectively ended famines (besides politically caused famines) Historically speaking this is an amazing achievement. Yet we have seen there are better ways.
My point is you can often replace one evil, with another that could be even worse, just because a few have decided to project their emotional framework and in some cases politics onto another animal species.
Basically the comment section of this debate:
Person A: supports eating meat/plants and thinks it's healthy
Person B: says what person A is saying is utter nonsense and research has shown he is wrong
Person A: retorts by saying that person B got his research wrong and needs to look up real research and that you will be perfectly healthy by not eating meat/plants
Person A and B keep going back and forth without any real results from their discussion.
At the same time, in the same comment thread person C, D, F are cursing at each other and having a similiar conversation.
Come on people, you aren't getting anywhere with this, stop wasting your life commenting in a youtube comment section and arguing with people you don't even know...
We don't need to stop or reduce meat consumption globally we need to stop factory farming and fast food and junk food consumption globally and go back to the natural omnivorous diet that humanity will always be which will improve both human and animal lives and echo systems will naturally repair themselves and people in the northern hemisphere will always have to eat meat it is more essential for Europeans and the Russians and siberians and people living in northern Asia and the Himalayas and the innuit people in northern Canada and the native Americans to have more meat in our diets then those people living in or South of the equator because of winter and living in the frozen tundra
The mentioned reduction of meat has to be exceptional to make the environmental impact needed
GREED is the problem. Not you and I (the average person just trying to live their lives without accumulating gross amounts of wealth and power whilst impoverishing millions of others).
Big pharma and big food companies, strangely owned by the same few mega corporations, are the cause of most of the problems in the world today.
I love eating meat and 100% believe it is a vital part of being healthy. I can eat less factory farmed (which I think is horrendous) meat, dairy etc but until mega corporations are dissolved and what we all do individually on a daily basis won’t have much impact on the real causes of the world’s issues.
I believe that over-population is the real issue. Switching to just eating plants just kicks the problem further on down the road.
This is why I don't like this kind of debate formats. Sometimes you can't just be for/pro or against.
Why is he on the opposition side?... he goes more and more to the proposition
I’m a meat eat and I totally agree with this guy
I meat and I totally agree
You get this guy for the opposition?! Clearly the organizers are putting their thumb on the scale for the proposition. Why didn’t you get Alan Savory and anyone from the Low Carb Down Under group? Clearly you didn’t try very hard to get a solid case for the opposition.
How is this "opposition". Either speak FOR or AGAINST, not BOTH.
Compare the environmental and social impact of alcohol protection vs animal production. Shouldn't we cease alcohol production long before meat production.
'animals suffer their whole lives' also 'they're fed through abattoirs at break-neck speed'. so fast is bad, slow is bad. ummm
This almost makes up for the fact that they used a meat eater to oppose consumption of meat.
He would have been a vegan arguing for meat consumption and it would shown that oxford union is not that biased towards meat eating (sadly they are).
While an interesting and hopeful meat alternative, for myself included; cultured meat would not currently be economically feasible enough to buy as a consumer or manufacture as a company to be able to entirely replace the meat industry and it's scale and demand from the world. Cultured meat also relies on Fetal Bovine Serum which is a product dependent on the meat industry, as it can only be acquired from the slaughter of pregnant bovine, so is not really cruelty free.
An article 'Lab-Grown Cultivated Meat At Scale' by 'The Counter' clearly presents an in-depth analysis of UC Berkeley Chemical Engineer David Humbird which includes these and an additional two years worth of work organizing the obstacles cultivated meat faces. Not affiliated, it's just a really detailed break-down that makes his scientific study accessible.
so, 4 arguments for no meat and 3 for meat... i don't want to think that there is an agenda...
Peter Stevenson mentions the inefficiency of producing grain to feed animals. He could equally have mentioned the huge amount of prime arable land that is being used to produce biofuels. This mis-use of precious arable land is an extraordinarily inefficient way to produce energy and only viable through heavy subsidies funded by the tax payer.
regenerative farming has been debunked, and factory farming is the most sustainable system to meet the demand, which is why it is so unethical. but this speech was well constructed anyway, so it'll get a like from me. praying for a vegan world and cell-cultured meats.
This is the third speaker talking about plant based meat substitutes.
The issue is that those are mostly composed of starches and unsaturated fatty acids which are known to cause all sorts of dietary ailments. i really don't think this is the way forward.
Him and his gang of preschoolers are incredible
Easily the best speaker on this panel, though it's ironic he was placed on the Opposition side while these are arguments I would have made for the Proposition.
It isn’t like Oxford university had an agenda here was it????
This is not someone arguing against the motion at all - he made that clear from the start.
This was an argument against industrial farming, should’ve invited Joel Salatin
Many of these arguments are not true in Norway. Norway has the worlds strictest animal welfare laws. The animals don't suffer as much. I think really strict rules are the way to go.
What he is not mentioning here is that crop production in terms of yeild can feed the world many times over, even with production for animal feed. The crop yeild of Canada, American and Russia can feed the whole planet and feed all the cows...
People starve because of market manipulation of foodstuffs not because there is a lack of food
This is a dishonorable approach to the debate.
Good argument for the motion
Oxfordunion if your gonna chop up the debate put the pieces in one place. Please.
Why must they split these debates into multiple videos. Just give us a single video of the whole debate.
However I disagree with plant based protein as a substitute for meats. I have 28 plant allergies and multiple chemical sensitivities. I need a mostly carnivore organically produced diet.
Humans can't effectively use most food ruminates consume so it's not really that inefficient.
That said, bioreactor protein is probably coming to the shelves someday.
I noticed that Dr. Petersen didn't find it amusing as most did. (The flip at 6:21.)
Poor guy, must be humiliating to find yourself having this guy on your side.
He's arguing for the wrong side... and most of his argument points are not valid.
why is 2/8 missing?
hmm .. 6/8 (this video) was the best argument on the proposition side .. weird he was talking on the opposition side ..
in other words we had 2 arguments in opposition and 5 in proposition .. that's quite unballanced
So you are debating on the side you don't agree with? Riiight.
"Regenerative" grazing reduces the harm to the environment that is caused by ruminant animal agriculture, but it does not eliminate it. The methane produced by ruminants is 20-80 times more potent as a green house gas than CO2! The better option is Veganic Farming.
Google it.
Stress decreases animal production, if farming practices are creating undue stress they will fail to be profitable. Imagine the pain, fear and terror of a rabbit as the tractor bears down on its home then destroys a their home and maims the family; many of these will suffer slow painful deaths.
He is in the wrong side of the debate.
Love this platform
If the world went vegetarian there would be no forests left. How do you think you feed over 3 billion people? You need lots of land. For such educated people, I find the follow through lacking.
What he doesnt mention about livestock feed is that most of it is not graded for human consumption
Part 2?
What a rip, where is 2/8???? And this guy is opposition...stacking one side I see...
Since God ate my creation iv paid a heavy price
The notion of "animal husbandry" vs. factory farming, not the same thing
One doesn’t need a sensitive BS counter to clearly see that Oxford have already made up their mind on this subject.
It is once again up to the individual to critique the very presentation, and discount this whole ‘discussion’
Don't display part 2, and part 4 is basically arguing in the affirmative? If this isn't bias, it does a good job making it look like it, regardless of which side you support
This is not a debate, this is typical college indoctrination disguised as a debate. A telling admission: 0:21 "Ambika, you said at the beginning you were a bit surprised that I'm on this side of the debate, yes I think I am too, but the organizers insisted I speak on this side of the debate." - Peter Stevenson
Hahaa missing part 2 on the pro meat side and now got a "plant" on the pro meat side. What a con of a debate😅 should've got a regenerative farmer on, they'd destroy the entire vegan arguement hahaa
They keep placing human emotions on animals. Now, I agree that we need to stop feeding unnatural foods (or reduce it greatly), and our farm animals should be in a more natural environment, a better balance
The cereals fed to animals is not foods humans would consume. Co2 emissions is what feeds their plants, and why the planet is getting greener.
feeding people and nutrition are not the same
Did this guy know what side of the debate he's on?
I agree with the regenerative ranching. I personally seek out certified humanely raised meats.
Most people can't afford that lifestyle.
@@stellabystarlight3137 It can be done. I do it on a small pension, while also feeding my 2 physically disabled sons. I will do without fancy clothes and cars in order to stay healthy and keep a roof over our heads.
The cereals are so uneficiently converted by us or even worst as animals do.
He made 2 great arguments there towards the end and I agree with him on protein complex production in the lab there's a UA-cam channel where a bio hacked has made deer milk producing yeast, spider silk yeast, and quail egg yeast, THC and many others are also possible but many of the proteins are under patent from big corporations so like cow milk protein synthesis is under patent.
Just to be a contrarian, industry farming does have a lower environmental footprint then traditional farming, and is more scalable and is providing cheaper more nutritious(vitamin fed) food.
Wow! I never heard about these patents. thanks for educating me.
Doesn't feel like a very balanced debate so far. Video 2/8 is nowhere to be seen and we got this guy basically being on the proposition side xD
It's not balanced because there's pretty much no one in their right mind arguing against the notion. Try to find me one in the whole of youtube, or other platforms if you prefer.
Wasn't this guy supposed to be PRO-meat? Then why did he spend over half his time talking about meat's "problems?" Talk about not debating in good faith!
Ok how much exactly does the uk have to reduce its meat consumption?
What a goober. Who picked this guys for the opposition. Waste of a choice.
Part 2 must be Haram
Figured out Louise Gray "The Ethical Carnivore" was the speaker they cut
This doesn’t remember what side he’s supposed to represent
opposition my behind