Eating meat in the developed world is morally wrong.

My view is that meat is only a pleasure. On the grounds that it is mearly a pleasure, it should be stopped to prevent suffering. As suffering is more important than pleasure to any nation considering themselves to be compassionate and free. My argument stated "this is not about eating meat in general", and yet your title read: "this debate is about eating meat..." It is not about eating meat. For I am obviously not arguing that its morally wrong to grow a chicken breast, or even to be 100% sure of the animal not suffering whatsoever. Or indeed, to be wrong for tribal societies or even animals to partake in. I am arguing that "right now", as I have said, it's wrong. Meaning that the methods used to feed the population meat, and those of us who support it, are wrong. So this next argument is irrelevant: You say: "It is not necessary to cause any pain or suffering to animals to eat them. Voters can wholly agree that animals should not be treated poorly or put through unnecessary pain. This has nothing to do with the resolution and pain and suffering is a separate issue all together." Killing animals, and pain and suffering, aren't altogether seperate issues though. Theoretically, it might be possible to cause an animal no suffering by killing it. How this could be done on the scale needed to feed a modern society, I don't know. But this is irrelevant, as the argument states: "talking about right now, in developed countries". You say: "From a more utilitarian perspective eating meat contributes to the benefit of highly conscious humans and no pain or suffering is necessary for the animals [2]. With a large benefit on one hand, and no need for a loss of the benefit to animals, eating meat is most definitely moral." I agree, but again, it's irrelevant. For no such system exists or ever has. You say: ""We have been designed by evolution to eat meat and other animal foods[3]." It contains a high amount of protein, essential vitamins and minerals and is essential to a low carb diet. It"s natural to enjoy eating meat since we have evolved to eat it and it contributes to a high level of enjoyment to virtually every culture on the planet." Now this is a legitimate argument. Meat is not our natural food source. That's why we actually carnt eat meat. Have you ever tryed to eat raw roadkill? a meat-eater would, he would be attracted to it. Our, brains have evolved to feel disgusted at a corpse, and this is another way that we know we are not naturally meant to eat meat. Meat must be heated at a high temperature and carefully cooked through, to avoid sickness. Even when cooked however, it is detrimental to our health in many ways. Vegetarians live 6 to 10 years longer than meat eaters, and chicken increases the risk of cancer by 52%. So my point is, eating meat is not a necessity. You say: "As Pro has conceded. The assertion that farming animals is not natural does nothing to prove that pain and suffering is necessary to eat meat" I know. I don't think that it would be impossible to eat meat without suffering. I just think that it probably would be impossible to achieve on a scale big enough to feed the whole society. I am not trying to prove that it is impossible to eat meat without suffering anyway, I don't know why you keep saying it. It's about "now" like I said. I don't disagree with the concept of farming, there is such a thing as reciprocal altruism. However 99% of farms don't know the meaning of the word. Killing an animal is also not part of a reciprocally altruistic relationship. You say: "Pro did not establish a moral context to discuss this or point to a specific moral code making the resolution very difficult to support. Many descriptive moral relativist positions would accept that eating meat is moral since it widely accepted in our culture [1]. It may be moral under certain cultures but not in others." I think the reason your having difficulty grasping any moral certainty is because of your terminology. You keep saying "eatingmeat" rather than "killing others for pleasure". For "eating meat" is not necessarily wrong. Killing animals for pleasure, when you know better, is wrong. Simple. Maybe if you started saying "cruelty to others" rather than "eating meat", reality might hit home quicker. Read through your augment now dong that, and just see what perspective it gives. You say: "The arguments presented rest on a false assumption. Animal suffering is required to eat meat. This is simply not true. I would like to see farm animals treated a lot better but this is a separate issue all together. Animals could be raised under good conditions avoiding pain and suffering leading to a painless death. Pro"s arguments just do not address the resolution." Whether you could see it or not, it was intended to. This argument is about killing animals. If you think we should not aim to cut meat out of our diet then please argue that because everything else we probably agree on. I think causing suffering is wrong, not that it's impossible to not cause suffering. Where did you get that impression? Never mind, if you dissagree then please continue, but please don't waste our time talking about a separation between pain and killing, as it is not relevant in a debate about today's society. Thank you