Eating Meat is not Inherently Unhealthy or Immoral

I always hope for one thing, that one day schools will start teaching formal logic to their students. Now let me start with the burden of proof analysis once again, before that however let me present to you one fact. The motion of the debate does not mention hard core veganism; it only mentions meat. This was defined as flesh earlier on. Now lets come to the burden of proof analysis. I use the S5 Modal Logic System here made by Lewis Carroll. Let us before that attribute some signs: U is for unhealthy, and I is for Immoral. Now above I say that my opponent must show necessarily not UI. What this means is that he must show that meat is necessarily not inherently immoral and/or unhealthy. What necessarily implies here is that the motion is an absolute motion, not a comparative, or a shared one. My opponent must prove that meat is necessarily not immoral, and it is necessarily not unhealthy. Now some may say that the burden of proof is on me, for my opponent is trying to show a negative. I quote the Latin law here: Onus probandi incumbet ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat. The burden is on the one "affirming" something. My opponent is affirming the healthiness and the morality of eating meat. Now I must show the negation of my opponent, right? Well since my opponent must show necessarily not UI, I must show negation necessarily not UI, which through the S5 Logic System translated to possibly UI. So if I can show that meat is possibly unhealthy, or possibly immoral I win. I win this debate because my opponent concedes that sometimes meat is unhealthy. There are also a plethora of citations I used to show the harmful effect of eating meat. Eating meat affects the heart, kidneys, liver, et cetera. It causes cardio-vasular diseases, and contains numerous toxins. Now most of my opponent's arguments are comparative. That the benefits out way the harms, well he still loses because he cannot satisfy his burden of proof. Seeing that there is in fact some harm. My above analysis can be checked if one Googles S5 Logic System, though here are some essays. [14][15][16] As for my first source, my opponent picks and chooses. The paragraph itself states of meat in general, and only then states that meat in large amounts is more detrimental. Meat in itself is inherently unhealthy, while eating it in small amounts may not effect one per say, it is still unhealthy. One who drinks alcohol socially is not considered to be doing something exceptionally unhealthy, but over long periods it still affects one's health. I believe this is what stunning is: 'Electrical stunning is done by sending an electrical current through the brain and/or heart of the animal before slaughter. Current passing through the brain induces an immediate but non-fatal general convulsion that produces unconsciousness. Current passing through the heart produces an immediate cardiac arrest that also leads shortly to unconsciousness and death. '[17] Do you know that 15% of animals are not put to sleep, they endure the pain of the current? Also stunning does not kill the animals, it puts them in an unconscious state, and they can still feel pain. Granted they wont remember this pain, partly because they will be dead, but they will be feeling pain for upto 10 minutes they will get heart attacks, some seize, and other problems. This is humanitarian? Also this leaves the point that my opponent conceded that he made an appeal to nature. Not to mention as animals are sentient creatures, and can feel pain, would you be okay if we stun humans before we cook 'em up? My opponent's rebuttal is near non-existent. He states that since everything humans do causes pollution this is okay. Growing vegetables does not cause pollution, it reduces the CO2 from the air. In comparison I have earlier shown how meat causes extremely large amounts of CO2. Now the world is moving onto organic foods and many countries have banned any form of pesticides which are toxic. With that I end this debate, my thanks once more to Bennett, and to the voters. [14]. http://faculty.georgetown.edu... [15]. http://en.wikipedia.org...(modal_logic) [16]. http://www.filozof.uni.lodz.pl... [17]. http://en.wikipedia.org... Alecium Shaloom!