Number 3 was definitely the controversial one to debate.
What is it?
The text used to illustrate the academic vocabulary introduced on page 163 of Skillful introduces the opinions that we should "switch to a vegetarian diet as an ongoing way of reducing [our] use of water" (Warwick and Rogers, 2018, pp. 163).
We want to debate a slightly stronger version of that proposition.
This is an opportunity to use the academic vocabulary introduced: advocate, equate, eventual, finite, intensity, legislation, ongoing, and resolution.
The verb patterns introduced in the grammar section on page 166 might also be useful.
The proposition
Meat consumption should be banned.
The government team is arguing for this proposition, the opposition team is arguing against it.
First, present key points
Your team has had time to brainstorm the supporting points for your side of the argument. Now, each team member will write a comment in one paragraph to support their allocated main point supporting their side of the argument.
The topics have already been chosen. You have already brainstormed ideas in your group. Now, organize those ideas and write one paragraph that states and supports one of the main points for your side of the debate, perhaps including responses to possible counterarguments from the opposing side.
Time: 12:00 minutes.
How many of the words on the academic vocabulary list can you get into your one paragraph? (This is not your major concern, and depending on the key point you are presenting, some of the vocabulary might not be appropriate.)
Next - rebuttal
Back in your group, read the opposing teams arguments. How are you going to respond to each of their points?
Brainstorm responses, and allocate a team member to write the rebuttal reply to each of the opposing team's supporting points.
Time: 20 minutes.
I suggest you spend about 10:00 minutes first discussing how you might answer each of the other teams arguments, then each member has 10:00 minutes to write their one-paragraph response to their allocated comment from the opposing team.
Reference
- Warwick, L. & Rogers, L. (2018). Skillful 4: Reading & Writing, Student's Book Pack (2nd. ed.). London: Macmillan Education
I advocate for banning meat consumption as it wastes the huge amount water compared to other alternatives which comsume less water usage and can offer the same or higher nutrients.
ReplyDeleteTo begin with, although meat lover might argue this concept, it is evident that vegetables are ble to provide a wide range of nutrients and most importantly, in general it needs five-times lower water usage if we compare them in the same weight.
Moreover, there are others sources such as insects which provide higher protein than meat do. Insects are generally easier to be reproduced since they are though and require less food and water. For example, many Thais raise them to eat and it also helps improve a problem in a lack of Thai nutrients.
To sum up, as the aforementtioned supporting ideas, I would say we should ban eating meat for the greater good.
I didn't agree with you. I advocate meat consumption. I understand that vegetable can provide protein as well. However, this way is difficult in practice as it would have a negative aspect such as livestock farming industry that cultivate a better economic status for farmers in some areas. Another related fact is that changing people diet habits won't be success in world wide since it is related to food culture. Solving this problem by recycling goods and products would be imperative steps to be considered. Recycling is much easier and more practical.
DeleteMeat consumption should be banned because it is harmful to your health. For example, eating meat that was killed by torture has a really serious consequences for your health, such as cancer. Another reason is that eating a lot of meat can lead to poor digestion because the meat digestion process requires more digestion than vegetables. Finally, eating thing without being clean or eating unusual things might bring us some diseases, such as Covid.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I think that all meat has the same effect, I thought that Phum's relative clause "that was killed by torture" raises a moral issue worth considering. Should we supporting inflicting suffering on sentient animals by paying other people to torture and kill on our orders, which is what we do when we buy factory farmed chicken, pork and other meats that come from animals raised in unnatural factory conditions so that large companies can maximize profits.
DeleteAlthough this is not directly related to reducing our meat consumption to reduce global warming, it does seem another reason to abstain from eating much of the meat sold in shops.
Meat consumption should not be banned due to the health issue. To be more specific, livestock products are the main source of protein which required for our daily basis. While some might disagree to our opinion because there are lots of plants that contain protein and can replace meat, but not in all places can grow plant. In some areas such as Middle east or Russia, they cannot grow plants but can raise animals. Also, high protein plants such as soy, rice or apple, cannot grow in all areas. Moreover, there are some common diseases found in vegetarianism when they are stopped eating meat for a period of time. For the reasons discussed, therefore the meat consumption should not be banned.
ReplyDeleteActually, I advocate meat consumption. I do agree that consuming meat has negative consequences, such as cancer and virus infection. Even so, I never heard of a disease caused by stopping eating meat. Could you tell me more about these diseases?
DeleteMaking meat consumption illegal can affect people psychologically. Obviously, a sudden ban of something that people like and consume normally can be a cause of unhappiness. With the majority of people around the world eating meat, a sudden change from a balanced diet to eating only plants can be shocking or stressing for most people, especially to those who love meat. Moreover, crime rates could get higher because making meat illegal increases new illegal activities, such as smuggling or producing meat. This would interfere with people’s safety, since law enforcement would be forced to focus on these activities, other than other more dangerous illegal crimes, smuggling drugs etc.
ReplyDeleteHi Yujin, thank you for sharing your comments here. Although banning meat consumption can make people who enjoy eating it feel unsatisfied and it can cause new illegal activities, I strongly believe that if governments ban meat consumption, our societies can be better, because doing so can make people be more kind and less cruel toward animal and humans. Eating meal involves killing animals so that people can eat their flesh, blood and organs. This kind of activity promotes cruel in humans. Therefore, if meat consumption be banned, the societies can be a better place to live.
DeleteI think the government should ban meat consumption, because it tortures animals. As we have heard from news, many farm animals have been raising in the way that make those farm animals sick. A good example is chicken farm. Those chicken there has been raising in very narrow space.
ReplyDeleteWith this unhealthy living condition, it can cause them to be very stressful. Moreover, when they are full growth, they are sent to slaughterhouse where mass killings are conducted. Those chicken that we eat were born and risen in suffering conditions for their whole lives before they are killed. Another good example is a popular France dish: Foie Gras. The way that farmers rise their poultry is very cruel, as they force their poultry to eat too much food so that they can produce fatty liver to be a delicious food for humans. When considering these kinds of cruel things that happen when people produce meat, I strong believe that we should ban eating meat.
DeleteAccording to new legislation by the government, I think its effect can be more negative than positive. Although many will claim that we should stop eating meat products as it is one of the main cause of water scarcity which still affect a quarter of population. I think we can address this issue effectively in many other way. I think that the more serious problem will occur entirely if the change take place without preapared. In general, most counrties economics has agriculture as the main proportion, especially in meat products. The sudden ban in this area can cause severe economic crisis which lead many problems following. For example, in Thailand, the most wealthiest company is CPall, the largest meat producers. CPall controls the country’s economic as its trade and sub brands cover all areas that every Thai’s dollars is spent on. The immediate ban on its main business can lead Thai economic to become chaos. The largest meat producer means it has many millions employees working for them. This fast change can cause the largest unemployment history in Thailand. Bad economics and high rate of unemployment means our country is at high risk of criminal events. Shold we let this doubtful tools to deal with water scarcity to make our country become at unstable state and live cautiously.
ReplyDeleteI like the way Yok elaborates on Yujin's argument against a sudden ban on eating meat, but as noted in my reply to Yujin, a ban need not be sudden.
DeleteIf a substantial number of consumers decided to stop eating meat, would the resulting economic risk to established farming economies be sufficient to justify laws that required people to eat meat? Or might it be preferable to use persuasion than making laws to dictate what people may or may not eat, drink, smoke or otherwise consume, leaving the producers to respond to the changing consumer demand for products according to free market principles?