Animals should be slaughtered to provide people with food.

First, I know that there are a lot of strong opinions both for and against vegetarianism and the like. As I'm sure you know, personal expressions are best in "opinions" and "polls," and not votes. While expressing our own personal opinions are important, in this debate the only acceptable argument are those between Wylted and kbub (pm me your opinions!).Whether you are for or against these issues personally I ask that you please try to be neutral in voting for the debate. I will be making some seemingly judgmental remarks about eating meat, but please do not take this for me attacking your beliefs personally. Thank you, and please enjoy! As far as I can tell, there are two/three main points that my opponent made that could risk my winning this debate, which I believe are all based on misunderstanding. I will be going A LITTLE OUT OF ORDER to answer them now. They are: Contention 6, emotional arguments, and "red herrings."My rebuttals: Contention 6: Eating plants kills animals too, AND Borden of Proof Reminder:The chief reason I am concerned with this point is that my opponent seems to misrepresent what this debate is about. Wylted generously says in the comments: "If I step over any of theses boundaries I've agreed to just refer voters to the comment section in your debate, every one of these comments have been made before you accepted the debate so far so I'm bound to them."I am holding Wylted to that. Wylted also says:"I'm looking at how humans actually get their supply of meat now not how in a theoretical universe they could possibly get their meat by living off the land.""The burden of proof is on me to show that killing animals ( chickens, cows, turkeys etc.)to feed humans is something that should be done.""No I'm not referring to in times of extreme starvation. If I need to edit the debate I will. I am also specifically referring to non human animals traditionally used for food and under normal circumstances."*Therefore: THIS DEBATE IS ABOUT SLAUGHTERING NONHUMAN ANIMALS FOR THEIR MEAT. 1. I do NOT have to defend that we must avoid killing any animals in any way related to our gathering food. Therefore, under my advocacy we can still kill nonhumans (such as rats) when engaging in plant agriculture. 2. Also, there are farfewer nonhuman animals being killed from collecting plants than slaughterhouses, as I've shown before (picture from previous source). 3. Additionally, with improved farming practices we can avoid killing nonhuman animals. Reaping plants does not necessitate killing animals. "Reaping" meat does, by definition. 4. We are not talking about instances of starvation, as my opponent said.5. Thus, reaping plants is far better and kill far fewer nonhuman animals than slaughterhouses. It even has the potential to kill none, since all of those deaths are accidental. Emotional Arguments/"Red Herrings"My opponent completely dismissed most of my arguments for being "emotional" and "red herrings."1. Such claims are new arguments in a summary round.2. Appeals to emotions are only fallacies when they reduce logic [1]. All of my arguments are completely logical. My opponent advocates the slaughter of nonhuman animals through "normal means." All I am doing is pointing out that slaughter is extremely painful, and that most slaughterhouses do what can only be described as "torture."3. My videos simply shows what happens in factory farms. This is not an emotional fallacy, but education on what happens in factory farms. My opponent seems to have found what happens in slaughterhouses disturbing, appropriately so. Even still, these are the FACTS of slaughtering.4. In some cases, emotions are unavoidable, even appropriate. If I were talking about a torture or massacre, it would be very wrong to not talk about it with some degree of sadness. We are not robots.5. My opponent did not give you any reason for showing WHY my arguments are red herrings.6. Red herring arguments are arguments that are used to distract one from the issues at hand [2]. I do not do that. My opponent is talking about the slaughter of billions of innocent persons every year. I simply point out that we should look to other instances of massacre to make sure we aren't making the same mistake. I find that this is extremely relevant because under the instances of historical massacre and this case millions of innocents are killed because they don't "count." Far from being distractions from the issues, these ARE the main issues. It's rude of my opponent to dismiss them as unimportant when I point out why they are important.7. My opponent, after dismissing them, did not critique these arguments specifically, but tried to distract the voters from accepting them by name-calling, giving them labels such as "red herring" with no analysis. This, oddly enough, is my opponent's red herring because he is distracting the voters from the real issues.Other rebuttals:BoP: Pro is defending slaughter for meat under "normal circumstances." Since 99% of meat comes from factory farms, these are normal.Even if that was not true, all of my torture/suffering/imprisonment arguments still stand.My opponent calls my talking about morality a "red herring." In fact, we are talking about slaughtering billions of innocent creatures because their perspective doesn't "count." As I point out, this can only be seen as extremely immoral. Simply because my opponent doesn't like animals doesn't mean they don't have true value. There is good reason then to think that this same mentality of genocide is occurring. Billions of innocent thinking, sentient, tool-bearing, creatures with complex social systems are being slaughtered for the convenience of those with more power. My opponent does not contend to these creatures being able to feel pain or suffering. My opponent wants to kill them because "they taste good." This is highly immoral.Contention 1: "Impossible?"My opponent first pointed out that it is impossible to avoid eat meat. I showed that my opponent is wrong, so he switched to it being really hard. This is entirely irrelevant. We are talking about slaughtering. If we end the slaughter, there wouldn't be meat, so we don't need to "choose" on way or the other. Poem:This poem is not mine, or my arguments. By assuming that my arguments are the same as the poem (which they aren't) and then attacking the poem my opponent is doing a classic "strawman" fallacy [3]. The poem is not my argument. Anyway, I don't approve of killing something simply because their life is inconvenient to oneself, which is the egocentric argument that Pro makes.Rudeness: I leave it to the voters to decide if my opponent's comments about my other debates was rude. I thought is was.Sources: My opponent gives NOT ONE SINGLE SOURCE on factory farms. All of my sources give the same, thorough evidence. Pro gives no counter-evidence, but is vague on which data are wrong. Health: My opponent did not contend that millions are sick from foodborne illness, hundreds of thousands are hospitalized, and thousands die. Slaughterhouses are the #1 cause of this. As my source said, fecal matter from factory farm runoff cause the illness in produce!My opponent wants a tie on health. As I pointed out, meat leads to a higher risk of death, cancer, and heart disease. There is no way I am agreeing to a tie.Environment: Con pointed out that MAYBE agriculture causes more global warming than factory farms, but that factory farms definitely would lower greenhouse gases 7% (like getting rid of 1/4 of transportation). This has far from proven that it is good for the environment.Eating plants:We can kill less animals with improved methods, and we already kill far fewer animals by reaping plants. My opponent does not contend with this fact. Deaths are not simple binaries: some have died unfortunately at farms that don't kill meat, but far, far, far, more have died from meat factory farms!Conclusion:My opponent must PROVE that humans should slaughter nonhuman animals with the standard, current methods ("normal" circumstances) for their bodies. We must therefore do a comparison:Pro: 1. Wylted and others will have tasty meat.2. Wylted and others won't be inconvenienced by having to end their meat addiction.3. Wylted and others would need to eat lots of spinach to gain iron (or is that a good thing?)Con:1. More people will die from heart disease, food-borne illnesses, cancer, and other health problems.2. Global warming won't decrease.3. Entire cultures will be performing immoral killing acts4. Billions of innocent, sentient, thinking, pain-feeling, social animals that see and feel and hear and think will be killed.5. Billions of the same will live in captivity.6. Pigs will live in cages so small they can't turn around.7. Millions will suffocate without pain-killers.8. Poultry will live in constant pain.9. Families will be separated and sold for their bodies (they love their families).10. Pigs will be so bored they will be neurotic.11. Most animals will be sexually abused.12. Will live in a nightmarish existence to be killed.13. Animals will be assigned a price tag for their lives.Remember, my opponent has to PROVE that slaughtering animals in normal circumstances for food is something that should happen. In addition to merely showing that my opponent hasn't proved that it is acceptable (only thing necessary for me) I have further showed that doing so is selfish, evil, and bad for all species. Even if you don't buy that, I have certainly shown that my opponent lacks proof. My opponent does not even show that nonhumans are below humans. Therefore, there is no reason for this evil atrocity to continue.Finally, I certainly was not trying to "win the debate in the comments." That was an attempt at gaining some easy conduct points. I posted only two things about vegetarianism unrelated to the debate.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://www.nizkor.org...