Eating animals is immoral and wrong in 1st world countries

"My opponent believes that by not killing the livestock that we planned on killing, It will somehow reduce the fact that they still need to eat to survive. " You understand that the only reason why that is, Is because of the absurd amount of live stock in the country. If for instance we let the animals roam free then natural selection would take place and only the strong animals would survive which would shrink the population of animals down considerably as well as eliminate that absurd amount of food and water required for that many animals. Besides I am not completely against having animals for milk, Wool, Or eggs, I am just against the idea of killing and eating animals. " But that would quickly be counteracted by the amount of gas used to move around massive populations of animals and massive amounts of extra food and water to the cattle. " - You understand that the gas used to move these creatures is a one time only man-oeuvre and that the 35 million gallons of gas saved is just a daily estimate for one country. Imagine if all advanced countries suddenly went vegetarian, You are talking about millions of gallons of gas being saved daily. " Screwed up version of cannibalism because they would be the same basic intelligence as us. " - Once again you would completely justify killing them if they weren"t the same intelligence at us, Which could also be used to justify killing and eating mentally deficient individuals whom could be bred to be eaten. You are calling for the death of millions of mentally unstable or deficient people simply because of their intelligence. " Again, Cannibalism. Also again, We didn't breed mentally unstable people to be eaten. " - Explain to me what the difference between killing and eating animals from a different species to a killing and eating someone from the same species is. Essentially their almost is no difference as mentally deficient people are unintelligent and are sentient just like their animal counterparts. Specifically name me a trait that justifies killing animals but not unintelligent humans that is not that they are the same species as us, As that is almost irrelevant. - Also just because we bred them to be eaten doesn"t justify them being eaten. This could be used to justify breeding mentally deficient people and then killing them for consumption. Or for that matter breeding humans for slavery. " In the sentence of mine that you quoted, I made no mention of milk, Eggs, Or wool, While I did finish my point by bringing it back to why it was humane to eat meat in first world countries by saying that there would be massive waste and loss of resources if America was suddenly 100% vegetarian. " - This is admittedly, My fault and I should have explained it more clearly. I brought that up as an argument as you are acting like we would keep the animals in captivity and gain nothing from it, When in reality we could use them for milk, Eggs, Or wool, All of which don"t cause the animal to die and all of which would benefit humanity. But again this isn"t a debate about the morality of animals being in captivity, This is a debate about eating meat, I hope this explained my point more clearly. - The Bottom Line is that my opponent is using species and intelligence as an argument to kill sentient beings when this is the same twisted morality that was used to justify slavery, The holocaust, Or any other genocide for that matter. - To conclude, I have established that eating meat is not something a first world country needs to do, There is almost no justification for it, And by not eating meat we would save plenty of resources that the world needs right now. The millions of gallons of gas wasted causes an increase of co2 emissions which in turn worsens global warming, The billions of gallons of water and pounds of crops can be donated to less fortunate countries who desperately need these resources.