We should move towards a world where everybody is vegan

I accept. In Pro's resolution, "We should move towards a world where everybody is vegan," I find it necessary to define the term "should" so that the implications of the resolution are more clear. [1]*Using this definition of the term "should", the resolution claims that everyone in the world is obligated to become vegan. Since this is a positive statement, burden of proof lies with Pro.I shall present my arguments:Contentions:C1. Human Rights- Human Rights were created by the United Nations to have a global understanding of how to treat individuals. Fundamentally, it implies that human beings are free to do whatever they wish as long as they do not violate human rights. Of course this is not completely true, as individual nations have their own separate laws outside of the 30 Human Rights. However, since every nation has different laws, the only way to account for every human being in the world is through Human Rights, which is acknowledged globally. [2]--> Therefore, fundamentally, people are free to do what they wish as long as they don't violate the 30 Human Rights established by the United Nations. Their only obligation is to follow the Human Rights. And since not being a vegan does not violate any Human Rights, they are not obligated to become vegans.C2. Personal Preference and Right to Choose- There are many people in the world who don't want to be vegan. Why "should" they be something they don't want to? C3. Food is Not a Luxury (in many cases)- There are many people who cannot afford to be picky with their food and choose to be vegan. What if your in an emergency and you need to eat something or you'll die? I have a teacher who went camping once and got lost in the woods for 2 weeks and had to survive on squirrels and birds because there was nothing else to eat and many of the plants were poisonous. "Should" he have been a vegan then and died?C4. Food Reduction- Let's say there is x amount of food available in the world, and y amount of meat and vegan not-approved foods in the world. Should we adopt a worldwide vegan system, the amount of food available to us would be x - y. That means there will be less food available for mankind because we don't eat meat. This is tied to the previous contention.C5. Economic Crisis- Fundamentally, an economy is fueled by entrepreneurship and the buying and selling of products. Many products in the market are not vegan-approved, such as dairy products or anything with the slightest bit of meat in it. - If the world adopted a vegan system, many products would either be banned or not consumed. Many people would lose their jobs. - Take McDonald's for example. [3] McDonald's is a huge multi-million dollar corporation that provides food with meat in it. There are approximately 1,800,000 people working for McDonald's. If everyone was vegan, McDonald's would shut down and 1,800,000 people would lose their jobs. - And McDonald's is only one out of several mega-corporations that will shut down, resulting any many people losing their jobs. Every fast food franchise, every dairy company, they all get shut down. Rebuttals:"we would be better off from a selfish point of view."- From a selfish point of view, we would be better off not enforcing our own beliefs and (eating) habits upon others. There are people who don't want to be vegans. It would be selfish to want others to eat the same way you do, assuming you are vegan, even when they don't want to. "But also, that it is in my view, its the only moral option for us."- I request Pro explain this claim. How is this the only moral option for mankind? As explained in my last contention, millions of people would lose their jobs. Is it moral to lose them of their jobs and destroy the economy just so that everyone can be vegan?Sources:[1] https://www.google.com...[2] http://www.samaritanmag.com...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...'s