Humans should be vegetarians.

Sources From Round 3[1] http://www.uscourts.gov...[2] http://www.faith.org.uk...[3] http://time.com...[4] http://michaelbluejay.com...[5] http://geotenners.blogspot.com...[6] http://www.worldatlas.com...[7] https://journals.law.stanford.edu...[8] http://www.nrcs.usda.gov...[9] http://www.sustainabletable.org...[10] http://healthyeating.sfgate.com...;Round 41. Meat eating and the killing of farm animals is immoral. As I explained in the previous round, it is impossible to determine whether or not God sets any standard of morality because it cannot be proven that God does or doesn't exist. Therefore, religion is irrelevant to this argument. My opponent didn't provide a rebuttal for this point. Natural law is a concept created by humans that applies to everyone in the world [1], not by a figure that might or might not exist. Regarding the immorality of killing innocent animal species, an argument of virtue also exists. It states that humans should live their lives with compassion, kindness and generosity. Killing animals only serves the purpose of pleasuring humans' needs for taste (and recreation), as we can easily survive without meat [2]. As my opponent stated, humans and their ancestors were forced to eat meat a long time ago. However, we now have the agricultural technology to survive without it. In response to my opponent's statement saying that humans are no different than carnivores and omnivores regarding meat eating, humans are actually much different than carnivores and omnivores since these species are forced to eat meat in order to survive. The main incentive for humans eating meat is pleasure, which correlates with selfishness. I am expecting my opponent to rebut my previous statement by saying that a moral standard still hasn't been set since morality is a matter of opinion. However, I have now proven that humans are not required to eat meat in order to survive, and it can be determined that killing species with memory and emotions is wrong (if that species is unnecessary for human survival). It is possible to disagree with this statement, but that would show lack of compassion and kindness, which have been proved to increase happiness and the well being of a society [3].2. Meat eating is evolutionary incorrect. My opponent admitted that humans lack characteristics found amongst many omnivores. However, my opponent claimed that teeth indicate humans as omnivores, not herbavores. It is true that humans have molars, which are helpful in breaking down meat. However, there are many ways to prove that human teeth and molars are indicate herbavoral status. For example, molars of omnivores and carnivores are like sharp blades. Although molars help break down meat, herbavores still have them, although they are flattened. The molars of humans are much more flattened than the teeth of omnivores and carnivores, therefore humans are characteristic of herbavores in this manner. Humans are also characteristic of herbavores in terms of jaw type, jaw movement, jaw location, the length of chewing, etc [4]. As implied earlier, humans have evolved to the point where meat eating is unnecessary since our intellegence has allowed us to create proficient technology to distribute other types of food. This is why meat eating causes many more problems to humans than it does to omnivores/carnivores; Our bodies have adapted to healthier foods (This will be discussed further in the next section). Carnivores and omnivores may contract deseases from raw meat, but this simply occurs by chance, as it happens less often to these types of species than it does to humans. Why? Evolution. Carnivores and omnivores consume a much greater amount of meat than humans, therefore their bodies have evolved to digest other animals much more easily. My opponent mentioned that humans often enjoy raw meat and fish in the form of sushi and "rare" cooked food. This doesn't take away from the fact that it is still risky (admitted by my opponent) to eat this type of food (especially for those who are pregnant or have a weak immune system), as this temperature is not as risky for carnivores and omnivores. Raw meat contains bacteria and parisites, which increases the likelihood humans will become ill when consuming meat at this temperature. Therefore, when humans choose to digest meat at this low temperature, it is not an intellectual decision, but simply a decision based on their needs (linking back to the morality argument).My opponent used the 1972 Andes flight distaster, in which humans canabolized on eachother, to claim that humans have the instincts of omnivores. As explained earlier, it is true that humans have these insticts, but only in desparate situations. Although humans know they can find meat in places aside from farms, they still lack the instincts to chase and kill living animals, unlike natural meat eaters. In nature, humans feel more driven to eat fruit and many other crops more than a living animal, which proves we lack the instincts of any omnivore or carnivore. Humans only feel like eating meat when it has already been prepared, unlike any omnivore or carnivore.3. Meat eating is unhealthyI feel that my opponent misunderstood the argument regarding McDonalds. I realize that this fast food chain and many other fast food chains are unhealthy because they prepare meat poorly. However, the point I'm trying to make is that this wouldn't be a problem if humans were vegetarian. Due to chance, some meat will be preapred poorly. If humans were vegetarian, it would be impossible to prepare meat poorly since there would be no meat. I understand that some meats are healthy, but there are many vegetarian alternatives for protein, such as beans, quinoah, tofu, fake meats, etc. [5] Omega 3 and other nutrients found in meat can also be found in the form a vitamin supplements. Again, humans don't require meat in order to survive.I never mentioned that meat should be banned. The purpose of the debate is to prove whether or not humans should become vegetarian, not whether or not freedom should be taken away from meat eating humans. As my opponent defined in round 1, the word "should" implies a moral, ethical, or desirability factor. It doesn't imply the restriction of freedom, therefore my opponent's argument regarding this sub-topic is irrelevent to this debate.4. Meat eating causes pollution, deforestation, and excessive land use.My opponent was unable to thoroughly rebut against my argument due to lack of space, although he stated that meat eating doesn't inherently cause excessive land use. The flaw in my opponent's argument is similar to the flaw in his McDonald's argument: Although meat eating may not be a direct cause of excessive land use, it's still an indirect cause... still a cause! If humans didn't eat meat, excessive land use wouldn't be an issue, and I proved this point in my previous argument.My opponent also mentioned that many types of animal agriculture don't require land. Fishing is a valid example, but almost all livestock requires land, and much of this land is used for livestock. Evidence was provided for this claim in my previous argument. I look forward to reading my opponents response!Round 4 Sources[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[2] http://www.bbc.co.uk...[3] http://greatergood.berkeley.edu... Out of room :(