Eating Meat Is Harmful To The Planet

Okay, in round 4, I want something to be clarified. Is the resolution "Eating the Meat harms the Environment" or "Making the Meat harms the Environment"? Pro's argument talks about the cooking and manufacturing of the meat, which isn't what the title says. Now for my response. The validity of both our arguments rest solely on the resolution, which doesn't seem to be correctly defined. The title is "Eating Meat Is Harmful To The Planet". Normally, this introduces the resolution, but Pro talks about the manufacturing. Unless Pro has an objection to the current resolution of "Eating Meat Is Harmful To The Planet", that will stay the resolution for the debate. We are talking about the eating of the meat, not the manufacturing. Defense 1; Pro's rebuttal means nothing with the current resolution. I have shown, without a doubt, that eating does not harm anyone. Pro's rebuttal states "However a cheeseburger cannot exist without an intelligent life form creating it." and talks about how we need to make my Double Cheeseburger. As far as the resolution of "Eating meat is harmful to the environment" goes, that's irrelevant. Eating the meat harms nothing. Pro's argument is just nonsense. If Pro wishes to object, explain how eating meat harms the Amazon Rainforest. And I mean EATING the meat, not cooking the meat. Defense 2; 2nd half of Pro's rebuttal. "If Con hunted a wild , then killed the cow with stone/wooden. Before finally making a burger on a wooden fire this would not create enough fossil fuels to be a concern." 'm not eating my Cheeseburger yet, I'm still cooking it. Cooking is NOT eating. "However this is inefficient as he/she would use up more energy making the burger than he would get back by consuming the burger." So? How is me wasting energy harming the environment? As far as I'm concerned, Pro's just avoiding my argument altogether. My argument is what the resolution suggests. "Eating the meat does NOT harm the World." Pro, clarify the resolution for us. What are we debating? Anyways, now for my rebuttal: Rebuttal 1; Pro's round 3 argument. "If I ate a burger produced using fossil fuels then that would not cause a problem" It was produced by fossil fuels, but is the eating of the burger harming anyone? It is not. "Most people in the western world eat meat that would have been produced using fossil fuels." So is it the eating of the meat that's harming the world? This isn't what Pro's suggesting. Pro's talking about the fact that the world cooks and manufactures meat via consuming fossil fuels. That is NOT the resolution. Rebuttal 2; Dropped arguments and unsourced statements. Back in round 1, I asked for the statement of "We eat twice as much meat as we did thirty years ago and this needs to stop." to be backed up with a link to a website. Pro has not done this, and if it is true, eating still harms no one. If it's false, then it means nothing. In round 2, Pro states that a vegetarian has 50% less carbon emissions than an average person. This needs a source, or it's just a baseless assertion. He also states that we require more land with meat factories than with a place that manufactures soy. This needs to be sourced with a link. It's a grand statement. Grand statements need proof, or it's just nonsense. Pro also ignored the resolution. We have stated "eating meat harms the environment". Now he's talking about making meat harms the environment. But in Round 1, and the title, he has confirmed that the resolution stands as "Eating Meat Harms the World". This makes Pro's argument invalid. Correct me if I am wrong. Argument; Eating meat does NOT harm any environment. Again, if I eat beef, does it harm the lions? It does not. Pro is unable to counter this claim. Plain and simple. If this argument is irrelevant, or needs to be backed up, Pro needs to say so. Otherwise, it's true. With this done and said, Pro needs to back up what needs to be backed up, and give relevant examples of why he's correct that Eating the Meat Harms the World.