Everyone who has the ability to adopt a vegan diet should do so.

They have been interesting, informative, and in some cases, very hard to refute (the makings of a great argument). He has also been courteous, and I thank him for this too. I'll spend a small amount of this argument refuting his latest argument, and then I'll attempt to summarize all of my arguments; due to lack of space, many of my arguments were a bit unorganized and probably hard to follow. I'll get to it. One of con's first points is that factory farms account for only 40% of consumed meat world-wide. This is true, but it is misleading. The reason for this is that factory farming really only exists in developed countries; this is because less-developed countries tend to consume little or no meat, and the meat they do consume is typically locally produced. (. http://chartsbin.com...) Of course they don't have factory farming - they consume almost no meat. In any nation where the consumption of meat and dairy is common (as in almost all developed countries), factory farming is the only viable solution. One source indicated that "Factory farming now accounts for more than 99 percent of all farmed animals raised and slaughtered in the United States. (Virtually all seafood comes to us by way of industrial fishing or factory fish farms. )" (. http://www.farmforward.com...) You simply cannot have meat production on a large scale without factory farming. Even if all citizens boycotted factory farming and turned to locally-grown meat, these farms would soon turn into factory farms because it is the only way to keep up with demand. They simply have to grow more food in less time. There's no other solution. (After all, that's how all factory farms began - as local farms. ) He argues that factory farming is not inherent in an omnivore diet, but that simply isn't true in a practical world. Unfortunately, factory farming is the only solution when any nation consumes any significant amount of meat. Therefore, the only way to truly stop factory farming is the adoption of a vegan diet. Con than states that "Pro then contends that breeding livestock for the sake of consuming its meat is immoral in and of itself. This is merely his opinion. " Well, of course it is. The very resolution of this debate is my opinion. Every argument you or I have made is a matter of opinion. These opinions may be supported by facts, but they are still opinions. My goal in this debate is to convince the readers to agree with my opinion. Further, it is my opinion that farming to breed animals as a means to ensure their survival is not moral. Animals have survived on their own in the wild since they evolved from other organisms. This argument is baseless and easily dismissed. Con has failed to refute my assertion that exploiting animals on the basis that they are weaker than us is immoral, nor did he attempt to explain how the same idea couldn't be applied to weaker humans. Environment: "Animal waste is also a non-issue for conventional farms due to a technique known as "rotational grazing". With this technique, the soil absorbs the nutrients from the animals manure thereby allowing the grass, among other crops, to grow without the aid of synthetic fertilizers [8]. " It is not true to say that this is a non-issue. Methane from cow manure is the third-leading cause of global warming (. http://planetsave.com...). This is obviously greatly increased from factory farming, but the increased production of animals on any scale (even local) will continue to contribute to this. Fewer animals = less manure = less methane = less environmental damage. Con also asserts that soy and nuts are 'incomplete protein,' which is not true. It is very easy to get different sources of protein in the same meal on a vegan diet, which in turn completes the proteins and allows them to work. Over-consumption of protein is not irrelevant as con brought up lack of protein on a vegan diet in his initial argument. Health Cancer: I did provide a source that trumped con's source. However, I posted it at the end to save space and so it is understandable that con missed it. Here it is again: . http://www.cancerproject.org... Tuberculosis: Con clearly did not understand what I said the first time. The study he posted indicated that vitamin D deficiencies were the cause here, not plant-based diets. The two have nothing to do with each other. Vitamin D is easily attainable with a vegan diet. Salmonella: Pro is right, although he admits that poultry is the leading cause of salmonella. Soy and cancer: Con fails to provide any evidence that the link between soy and cancer is widely accepted. He cites one page that suggests that women avoid over-consumption of soy, but this applies to everything. Over-consumption of anything, even vitamins and water, can be unhealthy. This is not inherent in soy products. B-12. I did read con's source, and he is still wrong. This source shows that fortified soy milk, nutritional yeast, and several other sources contain ACTIVE vitamin B-12: . http://www.vrg.org... Therefore, con's claim that "The only other place to get the active form of vitamin b-12 is in animal stool" is a complete lie and distortion, and this entire argument falls apart. Conclusion: Veganism should be adopted by every able person as it benefits animals, the environment, and our health. I have shown this through statistical evidence and well-sourced empirical data. I have thoroughly refuted almost all of con's arguments and and shown many of them to be misleading or false. While some of my argument does rely primarily on factory farming, I have shown that such a method is the only viable way to produce meat and dairy in any country that consumes any significant amount of the aforementioned products. Even with moderate meat and dairy consumption, risks of cancer are high; the breeding of animals causes environmental problems, even on a small scale; the nutrients found in these products are easily found in vegan alternatives, all of which are healthier and do not require the slaughter of sentient beings that have just as much of a capacity to feel pain as you and me. There is simply no reason whatever to continue to consume animal products, besides our own selfish desires. It is no longer necessary and its only effects are negative. I have shown these effects to be negative, and (while he did not have the burden of proof here and thus did not need to make this argument, but still failed to do so) con failed to show any evidence that animal-based diets had any positive effect at all on animals, the environment, or health. Con's only rebuttals to my arguments were easily refuted. As a result, I feel that I have sufficiently supported the resolution: everyone who has the ability to adopt a vegan diet should do so. It benefits animals, it benefits us, and it benefits our planet. (Once again, I would like to thank con for his opposition. Personally, I found this argument informative, fun, and extremely interesting. Con made a good case and made good arguments, and conducted himself very well. For this, I do thank him. I also thank any readers for their time, no matter how they vote. )