Critical thinking is highly important for people to understand facts and create their points of view. The doubting game is considered to be an essential approach to this process. However, the believing game which is opposing to the doubting game is also a useful technique for critical thinking development. The method provides an opportunity to estimate all the positive sides and strengths of the opposite point of view. Moreover, this approach helps to evaluate the personal position and to see its possible drawbacks and weak spots. The believing game does not necessarily require changing the personal position. However, it helps people to be more critical and objective in judgment.
Prewriting
The topic from the Procon.org Website: vegetarianism: should people become vegetarian? In my opinion, people should eat products of both animal and plant origin because these products provide different elements required for human health. Thus, I do not accept vegetarianism.
Reasons which oppose my position and answers to the “believing” questions:
1. It is unethical to kill animals while it is possible to avoid it.
- This idea highlights the ethical issue of vegetarianism. According to it, animals have rights that should be protected.
- If I accepted that it is unethical to kill animals without a particular need, I would notice that eating meat means to commit an unethical deed daily.
- This argument might be correct if it is possible to substitute products of animal origin with plant food without an injury to human health.
2. A vegetarian diet helps to maintain a healthy weight.
- This argument provides helpful information related to personal health: a vegetarian diet prevents obesity.
- If I accepted this argument, I would notice that the majority of vegetarian people do not have a problem with overweight and related health problems.
- This idea is correct and strongly supported by facts. It means that vegetarianism is a good (but not the only one) way to avoid obesity.
3. A vegetarian diet leads to lowering the usage of antibiotics with food
- This argument provides important and helpful information that products of animal origin are harmful because they contain antibiotics.
- If I accepted this idea, I would notice that I am poisoning myself by eating meat.
- This argument is correct until the regulations of the antibiotic usage in animal farms will not be introduced into the practice.
Writing
From my point of view, people should not become vegetarians. To support my position, I selected the following reasons:
- Eating meat is a natural part of the lifecycle.
It is a popular argument of people who promulgate vegetarianism that it is unethical to kill animals. However, in my opinion, it is not unethical. Predators are an essential part of all ecosystems, and nobody thinks that they are “unethical” and “should disappear.” I choice this argument because it is important to support my point of view that eating meat is not just essential for human health but also does not contradict morality.
- Meat is a vital source of proteins.
Proteins are the basic chemical compounds for metabolism. They consist of amino acids. Only meat and products of animal origin contain all the essential amino acids for protein building. This argument is the most important argument to defend the position of meat-eating supporters. According to it, products of animal origin are essential to human health and could not be substituted by vegetarian food.
- A diet is a personal choice, and liberty of it should be protected.
This argument represents the third side of the discussion: the liberty of personal choice. Vegetarians demand to protect animal rights and to provide severe restrictions to farms and other animal-related industries. However, in my opinion, it is a direct violation of human rights. As a member of society, everyone has the liberty to make decisions related to personal issues, including a diet. This liberty is a basis for democracy, and its violation is unacceptable. By this argument, I am trying to highlight that vegetarianism also could be unethical.
My Answers to the “Believing” Questions about the Opposing Arguments Explanation
The prewriting task was to choose three opposing arguments and try to apply the believing game technique to them. The first chosen argument was about the ethics of animal killing without a particular reason for it. This statement represents one side of the discussion. I found the statement strong and argumentative. In general, I agree with this point of view. However, one essential condition exists for this statement to be entirely true: that killing animals is unnecessary. However, I could not fully accept this thesis because, in my opinion, it is not true. I mentioned it in my answer to the third “believing” question.
The first argument was that vegetarianism provides an opportunity to maintain a healthy weight. My replies to the “believing” questions according to this statement demonstrate that I accept the opposing point of view. I consider this argument a strong one. Moreover, while answering the questions, I started to think more related to this issue. However, this statement also has a weak spot which was highlighted in the third answer.
The third opposing position was about the use of antibiotics in meat. I consider this argument as really strong, and I reflect it in my responses to the “believing” questions. The problem is important and requires the appropriate solution. The possible solution was suggested in the third answer. Thus, it could be stated that in this case, the application of believing game technique helped to find a weak spot in my position and even to offer a possible solution to an existing problem.
Experienced Biases
The first bias I experienced evaluating my argument about the source of proteins. The information that only meat contains all the essential amino acids is widely accepted. However, I realized that I do not have particular facts that support this statement. It is the bias when people trust the generally accepted or repeated information without checking if it is true. Therefore, the believing game made me think that my position might be weaker than I used to believe. To be more confident I have to look for valid and relevant information.
The second bias I experienced evaluating the first opposing point of view. It is the bias that one group of arguments is more important and weighty than another. In particular, I felt that the statement of the opposing point of view is not very important because it reflects the moral issue but not the practical problems. I felt the intention to neglect the argument because it was not related to the questions of health. However, this statement represented another side of the complicated problem which is also important and should be discussed. Moreover, I also provided a “moral argument” which seemed to be more valuable to me that the opposing one.
It could be supposed that my biases originated from my cultural background and personal experience. The basis for the first one is the habit of trusting the authority. My family underlined the importance of meat for my health from my childhood. This position was supported by the media. Therefore, I did not have any doubts about this information. The second bias is a generally accepted opinion that in the questions of health morality does not have particular weight.
The Impact of the “Believing Game”
The game did not change my position, and it remains solid. However, this exercise affected me in some way. First of all, I realized that if I analyze the opposing point of view as not an indestructible unity but as an array of separate arguments, it seems more reliable and reasonable. Some of the arguments are stronger, others are weaker, but all of them have a particular basis. Second, understanding the opposing arguments made me more tolerant of vegetarianism. Finally, this game highlighted particular weak spots in my positions. Moreover, evaluating opposing statements might help to find a possible solution. In the case of vegetarianism and antibiotics, the solution should be accepted by the government, and I do not have a particular power to influence it. However, this approach might help in similar cases to realize particular problems and to find possible solutions.
Conclusion
The believing game could be used to estimate different sides of the discussion and to find a solution to the problem. In the case of vegetarianism, this game helped me to understand the position of vegetarianism supporters better. It did not change my opinion on the question but helped to see particular problems from my point of view. This exercise showed that there are no “wrong” and “right” positions and that each side has its arguments. It could be concluded that the believing game is a useful approach for critical thinking development.