To be suggested by the contender

My opponent said that my information was "logically fallacious" and that I have not compared pure vegetarianism with their modified diet. First, I indeed have and I shall restate that point in a moment. But more importantly, I'd like to point out that my opponent has not specifically indetified with their modified diet is superior to vegetarianism. Though they provided information about it, they did not prove it to be the better of the too. Also, need I remind you that all of my opponent's arguments are based off of their personal biomedical experience, but not a single legitimate source. My opponent also said that I attacked chicken, but that this did not relate to the modified diet. Indeed, my evidence does relate to the modified diet as it shows the health risks of chicken consumption. Yes, the current habits of the average American vary from those of someone practicing the modified diet; however, the diet does indeed propose consuming chicken, a generally lean meat, which does have the aforementioned risks. These statistics are not deceptions, they're facts, with sources that my opponent lacks. If my opponent will call for me to provide evidence, which I have done in every argument, I would appreciate the same from them. "In addition, my opponent admits that the study only shows that we should cut all non-lean meat. This point can be ignored because it has nothing to do with my modified diet." The information I provided showed why we should non-lean meat; however, my opponent says that this is irrelevant because it does not pertain to the boundaries of the modified diet. If I understand correctly, the modified diet proposes the consumption of lean-meat, my information shows why it should not be consumed. Not only does this directly counter the modified diet, it is entirely relevant. Please refer to previous arguments for the specific information. My opponent's only arguments against my environmental points were that I "misjudged" their argument or that they simply would like to retract their statement. A statement can be retracted, but it can not be ignored. My opponent's modified diet does nothing for the environment. It would not decrease the amount of meat processing factories, as these factories would simply begin to process a different kind of meat. These factories would still be in business and would still emit pollutants and toxins. Also, my opponent stated that their diet would not increase consumption of fish. However, people would undoubtedly eat an increased amount of fish as a whole because those who at little fish would increase their intake to replace the other meat they were not eating and those who ate no fish at all would also begin to take the place of their former dietary habits. This would lead to a drastic loss in ocean life. Even if my opponent's diet did hypothetically decrease the amount of fish eaten, it would not help to replenish the world's oceans. A purely vegetarian diet would cease the consumption of fish and other sea creatures, allowing the oceans to restore equilibrium. My opponent has not provided any hard facts as to why the modified diet is significantly more beneficial than pure vegetarianism. They have simply repeated the fact that the modified diet includes only a little bit of meat. However, I have proven, through facts and statistics, that any amount of meat is not as healthy as a purely vegetarian diet. A vegetarian diet reduces the risks of cancers, heart disease, and countless other ailments. My opponent's proposed diet continues to subject the consumer to the risks of meat. Also, my opponent has offered not logical argument as to why their diet helps the environment. They have simply said that some factories would close and less fish would be eaten. This, my friends, is a real example of a logical fallacy. My opponent is assuming that people may eat less meat if it were part of the modified diet, therefore assuming that factories would close. However, on the grounds of a purely vegetarian diet, factories would have to close, because their would be no market for meat. Also, a purely vegetarian diet is far more beneficial to the environment. It allows nature to restore the highest possible level of equilibrium, returning it to its natural state. In summary, my opponent is relying entirely on their own experience, they have offered not other fact supported by an outside source. They have not proven why even the slightest amount of meat is necessary in the human diet. And they certainly have failed to prove that their modified diet is beneficial to the environment. Even if you feel as though my opponent has managed to prove some health or environmental benefits, realize that a purely vegetarian diet is significantly more advantageous in both areas.