Humans should be vegetarians.

As a brief note before I get into argumentation, I am taking the negative position such that I am not presenting a case for the opposite of the resolution, but rather I am showing the opponent's arguments to be insufficient. In other words, I'm not claiming that "humans should be meat eaters", but instead that the opponent's arguments for his claim are not sufficient in affirming the resolution. As such, my "opening statements" could really only take the form they did. I will recognize, however, that the opponent did label R3 and R4 as being the "evidence presenting" rounds, so I will excuse him for failing to produce evidence in R2 and I ask the voters not to hold that against him. Let's move into arguments. 1. Meat eating is immoral.The opponent clarifies that the objective moral standard to which he is appealing is natural law. He describes this as "a body of moral principles that serves as the basis for all human actions." As I presented in the previous round, there is no way to prove that a set of morals is objective outside of an appeal to a god, since only a god could be provide a morally absolute framework. (Though even that claim is dubious.)Because of this, the opponent's claim that natural law is in some way absolute is unjustified and unproven. Something is not objective simply because one wants it to be. The opponent would find it impossible to prove that some set of beliefs apply to everyone in the world. But let us assume that "natural law" exists. Notice that the opponent's definition doesn't define "natural law" so much as it defines "morality". Natural law specifically would seem to be an appeal to nature and the way that humans naturally act. In this framework, it would still seem meat eating is still not immoral. The omnivore point, which we cover next, greatly evidences this. We are biologically constructed to eat both meat and plants. Our hunter-gatherer ancestors had to eat meat in order to survive, since agriculture could not provide adequate plant material. In our natural state, we are simply omnivores -- and the very definition of an omnivore is one that eats meat and plants. Perhaps the opponent is attempting to claim that it is "more civilized" to eat only plants, but this would again be unfounded. Carnivores and omnivores have been eating meat since they came into existence and humans are no different. 2. Meat eating and killing animals is evolutionary incorrect.The opponent opens by agreeing that we are "natural omnivores". (Notice how this harkens back to the argument regarding "natural law".)He says that we, however, do not have many of the characteristics of omnivores and that we have different instincts than omnivores. Notably, this does not change the fact that we are omnivores, but we will discuss these two points anyway. CharacteristicsIt is true that we lack some characteristics found amongst many omnivores. It is equally as true that many omnivores do not possess these mentioned traits. The opponent references our teeth, claiming that they are not as sharp as some other animal's teeth are. You can often tell a type of animal (carnivore/herbivore/omnivore) by their teeth. An herbivore often has flat, moral-like teeth which is great for crushing plants down to size. Carnivores often have canines that are good at tearing meet apart. [1] Humans have both canines and molars, indicating our omnivore status. We can easily eat plants due to our morals, while it is very easy to tear into a steak with the help of our canines. Our teeth directly indicate our omnivoric nature, not an herbivore nature as the opponent claims. Edawg notes that humans don't eat raw meat, unlike other animals. This is a common misconception for a few reasons. First, it assumes that animals can eat raw meat without problems. This is untrue. [2] Meat eaters often contract diseases and get parasites due to raw meat ingestion, just as humans due. It is true that carnivorous animals are less likely to get sick from raw meat, and this is easily understandable as a product of evolution. Lions devour their meat as soon as the kill takes place. Humans, on the other hand, have long taken to storing meat for long periods of time. Next, it assumes that humans don't eat raw meat. This is equally as untrue. [2] A rare steak is essentially raw except for the crispy edges, and it is enjoyed this way by many people. Many types of fish are regularly eaten raw, in the form of sushi. Us humans choose to cook many types of meat because we are intelligent enough to know that cooked meat is less risky than raw meat. It is purely an intellectual decision to turn our meat into a less dangerous state. InstinctsHumans are instictually driven to consume meat. This is best noticed when the sight of a juicy steak causes us to salivate. This salivation is a biological response to the idea of consuming food, implying that meat is naturally one such type of food. When hungry, humans will desire to kill and eat animals. This is best exemplified by the 1972 Andes flight disaster in which humans got stranded in the alps and had to literally eat one another to stay alive. Most humans are not hungry enough to simply kill things and eat their raw meat. We are intelligent enough to know that food is more easily come by in other places. Contrary to the opponent's statement, animals do not just "kill and eat" whenever they see animals. Lions, for instance, will generally kill a single gazelle at a time and not kill again until sufficiently hungry. If animals simply killed other animals upon sight, the biosphere would be a very different place. 3. Meat eating is unhealthy. While I have admitted that fatty red meat has adverse health impacts, there are many other types of meat that are actually healthy. This is unrefuted. Instead, the opponent talks about restaurants like McDonald's and the obesity it causes. McDonalds isn't bad for you because they use meat, it's bad for you because the way in which everything is prepared is high in fat and sodium. If McDonalds only sold their patties, one would find the level of obesity due to McDonalds decreases significantly. More imporantly, the opponent has not rebutted against my argument that the "healthiness" of a food is not grounds enough to simply ban the food. If we were to ban meat because some meat has unhealthy properties, we would similarly need to ban many other foods, like ice cream, most dairy products, candy and almost all bottled beverages. Clearly this goes against the idea of "freedom", the idea which should outweigh "unhealthiness". People should have the right to eat both healthy food and unhealthy food, just as they should have the right to either go to the gym or not go to the gym. Long story short, most meat isn't bad for you and, even if it was, that would not be grounds to ban meat, deny freedoms and move to vegetarianism. 4. Meat eating causes pollution, deforestation and excessive land use. I'll cover this in more detail in the next round, since I'm about out of space. There, I'll be specifically addressing why meat production is necessary to support an increasing population and that, without meat, many people would starve and die.For now, I'll reiterate a point that was not addressed. Meat eating currently requires great amounts of land use. Meat eating itself does not inherently cause it. Improving technologies allow for more efficient farming. More importantly, many types of animal agricultural do not require land. Fishing is the best example. And if it can be shown that even fishing does not cause deforestation, it cannot be said that all meat should be banned on the grounds of these point alone. I look forward to the next round. 1- http://www.miamicosmeticdentalcare.com...;2- http://www.geek.com...;3- https://www.gov.uk...;