Vegetarianism

I will start with resupporting my arguments, then a rebuttal of Pro's arguments. Common farming exemptions allow any practice as long as it is common. This does not change that the USDA has inspectors that ensure animals are treated humanely. If animals are not treated humanely, it is the duty of the specific agency, "Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service" to cease this inhumane treatment. Common farming exemptions apply, so long as the USDA does not object. The Humane Slaughter Act was only one example of how the USDA and FDA protect animals from inhumane treatment or suffering. Laws still apply to chickens. I would also like to say, 9 billion is the number of total animals slaughter annually. The number of poultry slaughtered annually is still higher than any other group. This is largely due to the fact that these are smaller animals, thus they require more. Chickens are still included in the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's duties. Whether they consider it common farming or not, they are subject to inspection. If it is ruled inhumane, it will be ceased. Your refutation is now rendered moot. "My argument was not that vegetarian diets should be taken because they are healthier, it was that meat is most definitely unnecessary if vegetarians tend to be healthier than meat eaters. Sorry if that was misinterpreted." Note: this isn't one of Pro's arguments, Pro was just clarifying. I would like to further clarify as well, even though it's not relevant to this debate. Vegetables in general have lower calories than meat. I would like to state, being a vegetarian will not make you healthier than a "meat eater". Being a "meat eater", also will not make you healthier than a vegetarian. If you only eat meat, this is obviously not healthy. Vegetables and grains are necessary to be healthy. Being healthy has little to do with whether or not you include meat in your diet. It has to do with your diet in general. I will address Pro's group of arguments. "While one person refusing to eat meat would most definitely not stop the animals from being killed, if everyone refused to eat meat it would most definitely stop the animals from being killed." Everyone will not "refuse to eat meat". Further, animals are killed for more products than simply meat. It is nearly impossible to find food that doesn't use animal products, or somehow results in death of animals. People do not give their money to these companies to support raising animals or killing them inhumanely. People give their money in exchange for a product(meat, or any animal product). If these animals are in fact raised or killed inhumanely(which I have proven is illegal), it is not the duty of the consumer to stop it, as this would be impossible. Rather, it would be the duty of the company itself to stop this. "One of the laws of supply and demand is that if demand falls, the quantity sold falls[4]. When this happens, meat producers will produce less, because they do not want to produce an excess." My point is that one person will have no effect on the demand or the supply. Companies do not base the amount of meat they make based off of the amount people "order". If the general amount bought goes up, there will be a larger supply. Let's say everyone did stop eating meat. They would then be buying something else to replace that. Most foods do contain animal products. So, the number of animals killed really wouldn't change, it would just change what these animals' products are actually used for. As improbable as this is that everyone would stop eating meat(which would never happen), it is impossible that they would eliminate the use of animal products completely. Animal products are more than just food. Again, the animals would just be killed for a different product. If people refusing to eat meat halted animals being killed completely(it wouldn't, as I have proved) we could then argue the "morality" in laying off millions of workers. Because, remember, we are not talking about just the people that work to produce these animal products, but also every fast food chain in existence and various other companies. It is not morally wrong to kill and eat an animal. It is what is necessary to survive for secondary or tertiary consumers. I still see no argument as to why it is wrong to eat animals. Secondary and tertiary consumers all eat animals, I can only conclude that is morally acceptable to eat these animals. Pro argues that if we did not raise the animals they would not exist. Humans did not create these animals, they exist on their own. Maybe humans breed them for a specific purpose. Though animals still reproduce on their own in the wild. I'm not really understanding the argument because, in the wild these animals would reproduce more aggressively than humans are allowing them to now. Then we have these massive amounts of wild primary consumers. There are more than enough grains and vegetables to go around, but if we have 9 billion herbivores(remember these animals are also reproducing) a year introduced into the wild, this would have a significant impact on our staple food sources. While this massive amount of consumers goes up, the amount of predators would go up as well. Then the amount of animals being killed would not change. It would simply be a matter of whether humans kill them, or natural predators kill them. Therefore, my argument still stands. Further, I would like to state that vegetarianism does not abstain from using animal products such as clothes, leather, soap, shampoo. Since we are arguing whether vegetarianism is a more ethical diet, you're right. Vegetarians don't eat clothes or shampoo. However, the main component of your syllogism is that by eating meat, people are supporting companies killing these animals. Now, we can simply relate the purchasing of animal products to be funding this as well. I will not only argue that vegetarians fund the companies, by purchasing animal products, but also I will argue that a vegetarian diet does not eliminate the death of animals in the diet itself. Cultivating crops also kills animals, because when a tractor traverses a field, animals are accidentally destroyed. Studies have found that wood mouse populations from 25 per hectare to five per hectare after harvest, an estimation of about 10 animals per hectare are killed from crop farming every year. If we assume that all cropland in the continental United States was used for a vegetarian diet, 500 million animals would die each year. Vegetarians also do not abstain from purchasing non-food animal products. Remember, these animal products also contribute to the number of animals slaughtered each year. Now, to address the syllogism. "Animal farming causes suffering."(illegally, yes) Animal farming results in the killing of these animals, for food. All animals that are not primary consumers, also eat animals. It is not wrong for humans to eat meat. If we did stop eating meat, these animals would simply die of natural predators, which would increase vastly. "By buying something, you are supporting it." I have disproved this. I have shown that people buy it for food. It is not wrong to eat meat. Humans are apex predators. I have also shown that if(in Pro's opinion) buying animal products supports it, then vegetarians also financially support it. Also, I have proved that animals are still killed while farming crops. "Causing unnecessary suffering is wrong and something to be avoided" This falsely assumes that animal farming causes suffering(which is illegal). Animal farming causes death of animals, for the purpose of manufacturing food or products. Which vegetarians also purchase. I have disproved Pro's syllogism. I have proved that it is not morally wrong to eat meat. I have also proved that a vegetarian diet is not more ethical than an omnivorous diet. I will cite sources in round4, as I don't have room in this round.