solved After the presenters have posted their statements pro and con

After the presenters have posted their statements pro and con and their rebuttals to each other for Debate 10.2 , classmates are required to write a paragraph response. First, before reading the debate, note if you are for or against the statement (before reading the debate, do you agree more with the pro or con position?). Then note if your position changed or remained the same after you read the debate (after reading the debate, do you agree more with the pro or con position?) Give any insights on the debate or debate topic. Debate 10.2 First Group Presentation on The Omnivore’s Dilemma (304-363) Presenters for this Debate: Hiroki Mase and Fuyuki KobayashiOn this discussion board, the presenters on this section of The Omnivore’s Dilemma will post their presentation and discussion questions for the class, by Sun. 10/27. Presenters, or I, will post the statement, or proposition, that they have chosen to work on. Each presenter will post the equivalent of 1.5 pages on their position, labelled “pro” (for) or “con” against their chosen statement. After reading their opponent’s statement, the presenters should post their rebuttal (response to; attempt to argue against) their opponent’s presentation and a discussion question for the class, labelled “rebuttal and discussion question”.Students, you are required to write a paragraph response to debate 10.2 and send it to the debate 10.2 classmate responses by Tues. 11/5 (note additional days due to the midterm). First, before reading the debate, note if you are for or against the statement. Then note if your position changed or remained the same after you read the debate. Give any insights on the debate or debate topic.After I read students’ paragraph responses to the debate, I’ll send out a summary.Presenters, after I send out the summary, send a paragraph about your experience doing the debate and my summary to debate 10.2 classmate responses. This will be a week after I send you the summary, so your response won’t be counted as late.Debate 10.2:Topic: While eating meat is not required, it is natural in that it has played an important part in human evolution (314). PROBefore starting, I want to say that I am not vegetarian. In the book The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Pollan describes him as vegetarian but not vegan (Pollan 313). Pollan describes him being less socialize because vegetarians are still a minority. In addition, he said that he also feels “alienated from traditions”(314). Human has evolved in many ways by eating meat: teeth and brain. I am currently taking Biological Anthropology in DVC and carnivore has canine teeth but herbivore has flat teeth to eat grasses. Human has both teeth because we are an omnivore. According to Pollan, he said that “Meat eating helped make us what we are in a physical as well as a social sense. Under the pressure of the hunt, anthropologists tell us, the human brain grew in size and complexity, and around the hearth where the spoils of the hunt were cooked and then apportioned, human culture first flourished” (314). We all have bigger brain capacity because our ancestors started hunting, using tools to cut meat, and cooking meat. In addition, our ancestors will not be able to evolve our brains without eating meat. According to TIME,” A brain is a very nutritionally demanding organ, and if you want to grow a big one, eating at least some meat will provide you far more calories with far less effort than a meatless menu will”(Kluger). The brain needs energy and we produce energy by eating and digesting food. Nowadays we have protein but at that time, there wasn’t any substitute for gaining protein and meat was the only choice for our ancestors. Australopithecus first started this diet about 2.6 million years ago (Kluger). At that time, it would be much easier to become an herbivore because vegetable does not move (Kluger). However, a vegetable like a potato was hard and not calorie-dense. On the other hand, meat was easy to chew(by slicing, pounding or flaking) and had high calories (Kluger). According to TIME, Zink and Lieberman who are evolutionary biologists at Harvard University did an experiment and found out that “it required from 39% to 46% less force to chew and swallow processed meat than processed root foods.” Our ancestors got more free extra time and cranial capacity by eating meat. In conclusion, I feel that vegetarian people are less socialize because they have to choose a meal. In addition, eating meat played a huge role in evolving because it saved energy to chew, gave extra free time, and gave brain capacity. People did not have any substitute for meat and because of the meat, our ancestors were able to evolve to homo sapience. Hence, I think “while eating meat is not required, it is natural in that it has played an important part in human evolution.”Works Cited Kluger, Jeffrey. “Sorry Vegans: Here’s How Meat-Eating Made Us Human.” Time, Time, 9 Mar. 2016, https://time.com/4252373/meat-eating-veganism-evolution/ (Links to an external site.).Pollan, Michael. The Omnivores Dilemma: a Natural History of Four Meals. Penguin Press, 2016.Reply from CON:Rebuttal and QuestionRebuttal:In his article, he states that humanity has evolved in many ways by eating meat which is easy to digest and chew. The pressure of hunting improved the human brain, and human culture flourished around the hearth where they did the exchange of the spoils of the hunt. But today, a completely different environment from prehistoric times, eating meat no longer has the adaptive advantage that once was important for humans because there are, for instance, a mixer that makes it easy to eat vegetables and a protein bar that you can eat anytime. In addition, as I mentioned in my article, stating an idea based on very different things than our common sense, such as past events and events which frequently happen in nature, would lead to drawing wrong conclusions. For example, plenty of dogs are eaten a year in China, while dogs are treated like families in the United States. In the United States, millions of cattle are killed each year, but in India, even if only one cow is killed, it becomes a criminal. Like this, not only in the past but also in the present, humanity has large different common senses. Because it is natural that recent common sense is different than the past, it is wrong to conclude that meat-eating is natural just because it has been important to humanity in the past. Eating meat is not wrong, but in the present age when the inevitability of eating meat has disappeared, carnivorous is just one of the many options, and it is by no means a natural choice for us, recent humans. Question:If past humanity did not have a meat-eating culture, what do you think about how humanity has evolved?CON post :Debate 10.2: Choice 3. While eating meat is not required, it is natural in that it has played an important part in human evolution (314).Con.I do not think that meat-eating is natural in that it has played an important part in human evolution. Some studies state that eating meat is an essential element for us, one of the species. Certainly, scientific research says that early humanity developed their brains with high density and complex nerves by consuming meat. However, a fact that meat was essential for human development on evolutionary history does not mean that the fact obligates us to eat meat for moral and physical reasons. The reason why carnivorous was an advantage for developing was that our ancestors were able to save energy and time by eating meat than eating root vegetables like sweet potatoes, potatoes, and carrots. In the ancient days when humans and animals fought for survival, time and energy were precious sources and reducing their consumption improved human viability. However, there are no those advantages which humans were able to obtain by eating meat in recent days when it is a completely different environment than past days. Our survival as a species no longer depends on carnivorous.In addition, it is weird to justify carnivorous compared to the human evolutionary process and other animals. Carnivorous is natural in that it has played an important part in human evolution, or some people say that it is natural in that natural animals do so. However, this justification is a classic example of a “naturalistic fallacy” or “appeal to nature” as described in textbooks. “The naturalistic fallacy is an informal logical fallacy which argues that if something is ‘natural’ it must be good. It is closely related to the is/ought fallacy – when someone tries to infer what ‘ought’ to be done from what ‘is’” (THE ETHICS CENTRE).“An appeal to nature is an argument or rhetorical tactic in which it is proposed that “a thing is good because it is ‘natural’, or bad because it is ‘unnatural'”. It is generally considered to be a bad argument because the implicit (unstated) primary premise “What is natural is good” is typically irrelevant, having no cogent meaning in practice, or is an opinion instead of a fact. In some philosophical frameworks where natural and good are clearly defined within a specific context, the appeal to nature might be valid and cogent.” (Wikipedia).The fact that a thing happens frequently in nature does not mean that it is moral in human society. Stating an idea based on very different things than our common sense, such as past events and events which frequently happen in nature, would lead to drawing wrong conclusions. Although rape and infant killing are frequent in the animal world, no people would argue that humans should mimic such natural behavior.In summary, I do not think that “While eating meat is not required, it is natural in that it has played an important part in human evolution”. Carnivorous that once was essential for us to survive in harsh environments in terms of saving time and energy to eat and digest is now not so important element to live a life in a recent world where there is no life crisis due to wasted time. It also does not make sense to develop a discussion by comparing the human race with other animals or comparing the past with the present. Our survival as a species does not need to depend on carnivorous.Works Cited“Appeal to Nature.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 10 Oct. 2019, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature (Links to an external site.).Centre The Ethics Centre, and Ethics Centre. “What Is a Naturalistic Fallacy? The Ethics Centre Article.” THE ETHICS CENTRE, 12 Dec. 2018, https://ethics.org.au/ethics-explainer-naturalistic-fallacy/.Gander, Kashmira. “This Is Why We Pet Dogs, Eat Pigs and Wear Cows.” The Independent, Independent Digital News and Media, 6 Sept. 2017, https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/carnism-why-love-dogs-eat-pigs-wear-cows-leather-pork-dr-melanie-joy-vegan-psychology-a7932621.html.Reply from PRO:Hi, Fuyuki, Thank you for the post. You wrote “Certainly, scientific research says that early humanity developed their brains with high density and complex nerves by consuming meat,” and I thought that this statement shows that you agree with the idea that our ancestors evolved because of eating meat. You also explained why eating meat played an important role. I got that your statement is nowadays people do not have to rely on meat anymore. However, still vegetarian are a minority and most of us consume some kind of animal. According to Pollan, he said he was vegetarian but he said how inconvenient to live in a society without eating meat (314). You also stated that it “does not make sense to develop a discussion by comparing the human race with other animals or comparing the past with the present.” I think eating meat is ethical because this is how the food chain works. What I studied in my anthropology class, according to Darwin, he stated that “not everything survives,” in the natural selection. Eating both meat and vegetable is how we survived this harsh environment. You also said, “Although rape and infant killing are frequent in the animal world, no people would argue that humans should mimic such natural behavior.” I think this is off the topic because we kill the animal but we eat it. In addition, we did not try to mimic animals. It was our basic instinct and part of how humans evolved. You stated that eating meat is no longer needed but I think it is needed. I want to ask you where to get nutrients from. For instance, Vitamin B12 can be only taken by eating meat. I want to know how you are going to cover all the nutrients. After the presenters have posted their statements pro and con and their rebuttals to each other for Debate 10.3 , classmates are required to write a paragraph response. First, before reading the debate, note if you are for or against the statement (before reading the debate, do you agree more with the pro or con position?). Then note if your position changed or remained the same after you read the debate (after reading the debate, do you agree more with the pro or con position?) Give any insights on the debate or debate topic.Debate 10.3:Debate 10.3 Second Group Presentation on The Omnivore’s Dilemma (304-363, 391-411 (end) Presenters for this Debate: Viola Lee and Richeline AngestiOn this discussion board, the presenters on this section of The Omnivore’s Dilemma will post their presentation and discussion questions for the class, by Sun. 10/27. Presenters, or I, will post the statement, or proposition, that they have chosen to work on. Each presenter will post the equivalent of 1.5 pages on their position, labelled “pro” (for) or “con” against their chosen statement. After reading their opponent’s statement, the presenters should post their rebuttal (response to; attempt to argue against) their opponent’s presentation and a discussion question for the class, labelled “rebuttal and discussion question”.Students, you are required to write a paragraph response to debate 10.3 and send it to the debate 10.3 classmate responses by Tues. 11/5 (note extra days due to the midterm). First, before reading the debate, note if you are for or against the statement. Then note if your position changed or remained the same after you read the debate. Give any insights on the debate or debate topic.After I read students’ paragraph responses to the debate, I’ll send out a summary.Presenters, after I send out the summary, send a paragraph about your experience doing the debate and my summary to debate 10.3 classmate responses. This will be due a week after I send you the summary, so your response won’t be counted as late.CON POST:Eating Meat has become Morally ProblematicCon Meat has become a part of modern livelihood, with billions of people eating meat daily. Many moral arguments have emerged with vegetarians using the reasons for not hurting animals to justify their point. At a glance, the rationale offered by advocates of the argument seems justifiable. However, people should also pose and ask themselves the reasons as to why animals have remained in the global food web. The arguments have evoked a dilemma, with some advocating the eating of herbivores and omnivores. However, I intend to argue that eating meat should not be a moral problem.My first advantage is that humans are a part of the food chain cycle, animals eating animals is a fact of life and always has been, it’s the food chain at work. I acknowledge the proponents may counter my position by arguing that animals are capable of feeling pain. However, I consider this as an individual perception rather than a moral issue. Morality can only be objectively defined for oneself. To say that the lives of animals are equal to or greater than the lives of humans is a completely subjective matter of opinion. The philosopher Daniel Dennett makes the distinction between pain and suffering. From my standpoint, I do not consider animals capable of suffering, which is associated with the degree of self-consciousness. If the problem with eating meat is “the fact of killing that these people most object to” (Pollan, 305), then killing a mosquito would be considered the same offense. The nutritional value of meat also supports my perspective. Animals offer a rich source of proteins that may not be available in plant-based diets. Therefore, eating meat is not only about its appealing taste but also about its nutrition value. For example, vitamin B12 can only be derived from foods of animal origin. Therefore, the moral argument against eating meat among vegans may deny them the crucial nutrients. A Harvard biological anthropologist, Richard Wranngham, convincingly suggests that consuming calorie-dense food grew our brains, gave our ancestors the health needed to spread their genes, and for us to socialize which led to small societies that could organize and protect themselves. The main source of this calorie-dense food was meat. I believe that eating meat should not be a moral problem. I do not object to the concerns that scientists and philosophers have raised regarding the morality of eating meat. However, I believe that this should be more of an individual choice. Animals eating animals is part of the food chain cycle. Our ethical duty lies in eating meat in healthful proportions. Additionally, animals are a rich source of proteins that may not be derived from plant-based foods. Works Cited:Urban, Tim. “Is It Ethical to Eat Meat?” Wait But Why, 8 Oct. 2019, https://waitbutwhy.com/table/is-it-ethical-to-eat-meat.Links to an external site.reply from pro:Rebuttal To counter your rebuttal, yes, I do believe that meat is one main issue for the health crisis in America. As mentioned in Omnivore’s Dilemma, the amount of processed food and meat has drastically increased in the past century due to the cheap prices. However, as I mentioned in my argument, these are very unhealthy food that use various kinds of preservatives to prolong their expiry dates. The World Health Organization also confirmed that meat like bacon, hot dogs and other processed meat can lead to cancer. Nevertheless, the Los Angeles Times released an article stating that a group of 22 scientists has classified red meat as “probably carcinogenic”, which puts it in the same category as lead compounds, asbestos, tobacco smoke, formaldehyde, and insecticide malathion. In 2013, The Who’s cancer experts also found 16 types of cancer at risk from eating meat.Works Cited:Healy, Melissa. “Hot dogs, bacon and other processed meats increase risk of cancer, scientists say.” The Los Angeles Times. 2015. Web. https://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-meat-dangers-20151027-story.html (Links to an external site.) Question:The Question I would like to address and is most curious about is whether not eating meat for the rest of your life would affect an individual that much?PRO POST:Eating meat has become morally problematicProNutrition and diet are not what they used to be any more in America. Now, more than ever, people are more confused and choosy about what they eat. This food dilemma spurs from the ever-changing food trends that have rocked America since the 70s. Each of the diet trends that have influenced feeding habits in America from the late 20th century have all come with their own divergent ideas on what is healthy to eat and what is not. Perhaps the most prominent debate on nutrition from the late 70s up to the 21st century has been whether meat is a healthy dietary inclusion. Several cultural, scientific, economic and political ideologies have driven this dilemma and to date, no clear dietary consensus exists yet. This piece plays devil’s advocate and corroborates that eating meat has indeed become morally problematic now more than any other point in the history of humankind.The prime reason as to why eating meat has become morally problematic is mainly due to the health risks and meager nutritional benefits that America’s fancied marbled meat is increasingly being associated with. Most of America’s meat comes from the industrial food complex which relies on meat from livestock reared in feedlots and force fed on corn based diets (Pollan 70). This corn is grown in the prairies and the farmers heavily use inorganic fertilizers and pesticides to maximize productivity. Cattle and other livestock that are fed with this corn often become sick since their digestive tracts are not genetically programmed to thrive solely on corn diets. To treat these animals, various antibiotics are used and these trickle into their meat significantly affecting not only their nutritional benefits, but overall taste as well (Pollan 78). Popular studies have shown that the prolonged consumption of such meat has been proved to increase resistance to antibiotics in many Americans; consequently, offsetting a health crisis (Centner 1089). Likewise, the general nutritional benefits expected from this meat is also way below that of meat from free range (grazing) livestock fed with organic diets.The colossal amount of damage to the environment that occurs just to produce enough meat to feed the nation is also a chief reason as to why eating meat is morally problematic. As intimated earlier, most American meat comes from livestock reared in feedlots under corn diets strictly. This corn is grown using numerous chemical fertilizers and pesticides to increase productivity per square foot of farmland. The unnatural practice of growing only one crop combined with chemical usage, ultimately kills all other plants and natural organisms in the cornfields that are crucial to maintaining ecological balance (Pollan 80). Additionally, the manufacture of these harmful farm chemical apparatuses uses huge quantities of the fossil fuels which also contribute to further environmental degradation.Lastly, another prominent reason why meat eating has become morally problematic is due to the fact that the food industry is now based on the economic goals of the food manufacturers rather than the well-being of consumers, the planet or animals. This is the reason why the concept of organic food has degraded as the food industrial complex burgeons. As the demand for organic food shot up in the early 21st century, many organic farms scaled up and compromised on their ecological virtues to meet demand (Clapp 341). This ruined the nutritious quality of the food and degraded it to become almost as void as commercially produced food. As such, products from chains such as Whole Foods (who claim to stock only organic foodstuffs) may not entirely adhere to the virtues of real organic farming.Overall, considering the health and environmental risks involved, it goes without saying that it is impossible to feed and sustain the entire nation on food from the industrial complex (meat included). This is regardless of how easy, quick, and cheap they are to produce. What people eat is the most direct contact they have with their environment and as such what people consume usually has way more far reaching consequences to them than just a healthy heart or the right weight. Eating meat seems to affect the environment more than it does to humans, and as such, it is morally problematic to continue to do so knowing the detriment it is causing.Works CitedCentner, Terence J. “Efforts to slacken antibiotic resistance: Labeling meat products from animals raised without antibiotics in the United States.” Science of the Total Environment 563 (2016): 1088-1094.Clapp, Jennifer. “The trade-ification of the food sustainability agenda.” The Journal of Peasant Studies 44.2 (2017): 335-353.Pollan, Michael. The omnivore’s dilemma: A natural history of four meals. Penguin, 2006.REPLY FROM CON:Rebuttal and QuestionRebuttal: You brought up some good points in your statement, for instance, you mentioned that the livestock is fed corn-based diets which could be unhealthy for humans. However, I believe the question of this debate is directed towards whether eating meat is morally problematic, hence you are insisting that as long as we feed the livestock nutritious diets or hunt animals from the wild, eating meat is not morally problematic. To counter your argument, I do not agree that the consumption of meat has caused Americans to an offsetting health crisis or meager their nutritional benefit. Meat consumption is blamed for high cholesterol, high blood pressure, heart disease, and obesity. For more than two million years humans were primarily meat-eaters, the human diet only shifted in the last 10,000 years with the cultivation of grains and legumes. In the last 10,000 years, humans have gotten smaller in stature and brain size. With a heavy grain- and sugar-based diet, we are suffering increased rates of obesity, cancer, diabetes, and osteoporosis. Thus, it is right to argue that sugar is the main culprit causing Americans to an offsetting health crisis. The fats and high protein content provided from meat help keep blood sugar levels stable. There are many nutrients in meat that are critical to overall health, and while there are many sources of protein, meat is a great source of complete protein. Meat contains all the amino acids that our bodies need, including the ones our bodies cannot produce. Vitamin B-12 can only be found in animal sources and all the B vitamins are critical to health, especially mental health. The deficit in vitamin B can cause confusion, impaired senses, aggression, insomnia, weakness, dementia, and peripheral neuropathy. Plant-based foods can suffice when it comes to daily nutritional needs, humans will experience vitamin deficiencies and suffering decreased brain volume, fatigue, and confusion. Hence, the consumption of meat is required to complete our nutritional diet. Discussion Question: The question that I would like to address is whether you think meat is the main cause of American’s offsetting health crisis. Works Cited:Araki, Kadya. “Why All Humans Need to Eat Meat for Health.” Breaking Muscle, 26 Sept. 2018, https://breakingmuscle.com/healthy-eating/why-all-humans-need-to-eat-meat-for-health.REPLY FROM PRO:Rebuttal To counter your rebuttal, yes, I do believe that meat is one main issue for the health crisis in America. As mentioned in Omnivore’s Dilemma, the amount of processed food and meat has drastically increased in the past century due to the cheap prices. However, as I mentioned in my argument, these are very unhealthy food that use various kinds of preservatives to prolong their expiry dates. The World Health Organization also confirmed that meat like bacon, hot dogs an