Eating vegan is better for the enviorment than omnivoire.

"More importantly the topic is about comparing omnivore as in meat eater to vegan. So the shoes would have to be made out of meat to be relevant."I think you mistook my intentions. I was trying to point out that by proving the killing of any animal in this case for food is a good thing, either by hunting or otherwise. "Mainly, that fast growing exotic trees only solve some problems while creating others. Many trees that are cut down are very old and will take a very long time to replace with a tree of the same age. Also, the species gone extinct from the origin deforestation are more or less lost forever. "So, just like I mentioned myself, mismanagement? But are you saying a forest can't possibly be planted in a manner that includes older tree types, or other animals? Those 200 year old trees used to be 1 year old too. I do recommend you watch the documentary Dirt as talked about in my previous arguments. It does demonstrate a good way this can be done, in just about any climate."The exact quote is within the documentary."But you aren't the documentary, the documentary is a source for you so we know where it is you are getting your information from and verify your claims. But you never gave the full quote, or the context; and as such your argument fell short and incomplete. You just said something with no number of the finite limit. And even the quote you listed here in this argument, "the full quote", just shows that 16 billion people would get a weak grain diet to feed the 1 billion cattle. It still doesn't answer the question on how much the world can reasonably support. Without that number,the 1 billion cattle to feed vs the people it can feed is just a number, and a comparison that doesn't prove that it is inheritantly better or worse for the environment. Because it doesn't prove whether or not it can be sustained without larger numbers of the environmental capacity by itself."Nine billion, not nine million people. "Good catch, I think I caught myself a bit later in the quote where I stated billion, then forgot that I already stated million above. However, this still doesn't invalidate any point, because the number wasn't the point of the argument."Protein would probably be the least of concerns considering humans only need about 10% calories from protein."Which humans? The average human doing average human activities? But what about those who want to be athletes or very fit/healthy people? "I would never recommend a diet of all grains, but its still better than starving. Malnutrition is better than famine. Considering children still starve to death, the first priority is amble food then nutrition."Not the point. The beef for instance would be much more fulfilling towards the nutrition, despite things like fat and other potential problems when too much is consumed, compared to grain.Are you saying the starving people in the world will be fed with grain if we switched to such a system, and thus there wouldn't be the famine in places like Africa? The problem isn't their inability to grow enough crops or even cattle to feed their populations, but the big three issues the professionals in the sitiatuition point to is: (1) - Conflict Causes Hunger in Africa, like civil war. , (2) Climate Change, while yes, this effects crop output, the problem really can be tied to uncertainty, and can be mititaged by a better, more effficient and stable government/and infastructure. And this isn't even going into perhaps changing what kinds of meat/plants are grown for food in the newer climates. (3) Donor Country Politics.So no, I think throwing around those 16 billion numbers of being fed is just an emotional plea, and one that actually doesn't mean at all that they will be fed even then. On top of the fact, they would have better nutrition if it wasn't just bases in grain, especially since it hasn't been proven by it that they can't be sustained with beef yet."Desalination via reverse osmosis is resource intensive. A desalination plant takes resources to build in the first place $500 million a for the one mentioned. Not all farms are located near an ocean. You still have to transport the water. "The 500 million is not the point, but a red herring. We are not arguing on how much it may cost to get a sustainable meat market, that is not bad for the enviroment. Just that it can be done, and thus it is not inherently bad for the enviroment. Plus, even at 500 million - it is still much better. Because it sustains more than 70% of the entire Israeli populalations water supply. I would consider that a bargain.You have completely ignored the drip method for transportation. And proper methods if irrigation can actually be beneficial to the enviroment anyway, even without the farms. Bringing water to the desert, etc... So by arguing the transportation of the water - it isn't that simply. One could argue just doing that by itself is actually GOOD for the enviroment, outweighing and fuel and transportation cost in regards to the pro/con to the environmental impact. "Finally, the water in the ocean serves to regulate the Earth's temperature. While we have a massive amount of water in the ocean, the resource is ultimately finite. "What? No one is arguing that they don't regulate the earths water.Are you going to argue that we are going to drain the oceans enough where they would not be able to regulate the tempature in the same way?Are you saying that we can drain the oceans? I would love to see your sources on that. I could go on about the actual numbers we use, vs the absolute vastness of the oceans, and how about only 3% of the world's water is freshwater, and even how much we have tapped already is incredibly small. But to consider us treating it as if we are in danger of actually running out of that finite resource in the foreseeable future I am definitely going to need to see a source for to treat that in any way seriously."Aquaponics is vastly different than our current farming systems. Your warrant doesn't back up your statement enough. There is not enough information on aquaponics to make a determination either way."I think it should be pointed out that is not what we are arguing. You are trying to prove eating vegan is better for the enviroment. I am not trying to argue that we have bad farming practices. I am trying to prove that we can farm in a way that we don't need to go vegan. Thus, eating vegan is not necessarily better for the environment. The fact that it is different than our current farming systems is a non-sequiter itself. Not what is being discussed."I don't know about you, but I don't want a hunter shooting deer in the middle of a city."Appeal to opinion/emotion."My opponent made some interesting ideas. Many of them which would be a drastic overhaul to the entire system of agriculture."Then let us do them instead, and help the environment and still help people who want to eat meat eat meat. "We already grow vegan products"Non-sequiter. We already grow meat products. So?"Opponent hasn't really proved that any of these methods are more environmentally friendly than vegan. "You are the instigator. You have the burden to prove that vegan is better for the enviroment than any non-vegan alternatives. I don't have to prove anything other than the fact that eating vegan is not necessarily better for the enviroment. I don't have to prove it is better at all."Therefore, my opponent is comparing experimental and prototype methods using state of the art technology"Not the point, and you are shifting the burden of proof.Space issue.As promised, I will get into space a little bit. Various greenhouses can maximize sunlight, watering, etc to grow more food in smaller areas. There are urban projects to grow more food in many unused vacant areas, there are plenty of possibilities. Running out of room to right - so, I am trying to stick to ideas and not specific examples if that is ok. Another thing to address is how much space do we have, and how much is being wasted?