Vegetarianism

I will resupport my arguments and conclude this debate. 1. Legality of inhumane treatment Pro continues with emphasis on this. This is a debate about whether vegetarianism is a more ethical diet. The only way that inhumane treatment would be related to diet, is with your argument that it funds it. I have disproved this argument. You keep using "animals in cages so small they can't turn around". I'm guessing this is probably your opinion. Any inhumane treatment is illegal. "Sure the USDA is supposed to ensure humane treatment. However, they are still fine with leaving it illegal". No evidence presented. Again an opinion. If there is any "illegal meat", it is not all meat. Note: Pro accepts that inhumane treatment is illegal. 2. By buying something you are supporting it No argument by Pro. By buying something you are not supporting it, you are buying something. Pro doesn't respond to my argument. It is not the responsibility of a customer to stop what a company is doing, this is not possible. Again, pro doesn't actually refute my argument. If people stopped eating meat, the product would change to another animal product. 3. "Vegetarianism is following a plant based diet and abstaining from animal by-products." Vegetarianism is a diet without animal products. Vegetarians still use animal products. Pro says "does it matter?" Yes, it does matter. We are debating whether the diet is more ethical. You have only brought up that buying animal products funds or supports these companies. You have in no way, as of yet, argued why an omnivorous diet is less ethical than a vegetarian diet. Vegetarians also buy animal products. Thus, they are also giving money to the companies. A vegetarian diet also results in killing of animals, as I have proved. "The only opponent my opponent has offered to the fact that animal farming causing suffering is that it is sometimes illegal. I ask my opponent how this somehow makes animal farming not cause suffering. His second objection doesn't pertain to the more ethical diet." This is an example of a straw man. I said that animal farming sometimes causes suffering, which is illegal. Not "animals suffering is sometimes illegal". If you wish to say that my argument does not pertain to the more ethical diet, you could also say that none of yours do.(I have proved this) "If my syllogism and conclusion stand, then vegetarianism is certainly the more ethical diet." (Disproved already) Your syllogism does not stand, as I have proved. I will now show you how your entire syllogism is fallacious. "Animal farming causes suffering" "By buying something you are supporting it" This is an example of Fallacy of Equivocation. You have failed to recognize that not everyone is buying animal products. For example, someone could steal meat. This does not mean that they are funding it, as they haven't bought anything. Other examples would be being given animal products, as opposed to buying it. This includes children, who do not buy their own food. I have now proven that vegetarianism is not a more ethical diet. I have presented arguments(which Pro failed to refute). I have also disproven any arguments Pro had, and shown that his syllogism is fallacious(although I disproved it). I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. Vote Con. Sources: http://abcnews.go.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...