THW become Vegetarians

Unless my opponents has even read my comment at the bottom, I have given a reason to post my rebuttals in this round. For there are no round structures, this will go as followed and I have not dropped any arguments. C5)You"ll ease the symptoms of menopause. I see in this scenario a benefit from eating food off of the vegetarian diet. However this shows that you don't need to be vegetarian in order to ease menopause. People can still eat food from the vegetarian diet to help them ease it. If we look at this argument in the beginning, it also talks about how "many foods contain nutrients beneficial to perimenopausal and menopausal women." Note that this does not include men. In this resolution, we talk about America as a whole. However, this argument only applies to woman in general, and we see no benefit to men and kids from this argument. This does not apply to everyone in America. This argument should not be considered in this debate, as my definition specifically states "America". C6)You"ll have more energy This is completely false. They state that "Too much fat in your bloodstream means that arteries won""t open properly and that your muscles won"t get enough oxygen." Let me ask: Would there be any muscle without protein? No. Sure you can still get them from beans because they are healthier, but we as humans can't live off of just beans, eggs, cheese etc. Vegetables and plants do not have same amino acid profile as meat does to us and simply isn't bio-available enough to be able to use efficiently. Lack of protein in our diet brings out many harms. We are slower to heal wounds and scars on us. Our skin will become unhealthy. We would struggle to develop muscle tissues easier and become weaker and our digestion function suffers. Beans may be healthier short term. However we see the longterm issue as a harm to our future generation. Aside from protein, there is on big harm on discarding meat in our food chain and that is Vitamin B12. B12 is a very crucial substance and lack of meat can cause serious problems such as nerve damage, low energy, etc. Note that you can only get B12 from meat, asides from dirt. My opponents talk about fat in your blood stream. What is the impact? Does it kill? They have not shown us any significant impacts, as we showed you that without meat, we have much bigger problems in the long term stances. [1] C7 and C11) You"ll help reduce pollution and save the planet Giving up meat will not help the solution: in fact it will make it worse. Production methods for meat substitutes can be energy intensive and the final products tend to be highly processed. Note that it is important to remember that livestock produce large amounts of methane, a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.[2] From this, climate changes can worsen as well as the greenhouse gases that will increase pollution. Therefore, being vegetarian will not help reduce pollution or saving the planet, rather making it worse C8) You"ll help reduce famine Reading this over, I see no connection towards the fact that vegetarians actually help these causes. Extreme poverty and world hunger are multi-faceted global problems that are caused by government corruption, a lack of proper food distribution, and other reasons that don"t include eating a meaty diet. C9)You"ll spare animals Let us look at what Pro is suggesting: he/she is saying how we are killing animals and we are killing too much. What if we stopped killing animals? Pro thinks that it is terrific to stop it. However, consider this: if we stopped killing animals, how many animals would we have on earth? Thats right: I'm talking about overpopulation of animals. Note that animal consumption are not from extinct animals: they are animals who are plenty on earth. But that is not the point: In this argument we weight out human harms and animal harms. Are we equal with animals? Not even close. The ability of a human to breathe underwater is not equal to that of a fish. In both situations, I see that on one side we are killing animals. On the other, we see the longterm harms to humans. Thing is, animals rights are not the same as peoples rights and if we do stop killing animals and start to become vegetarian, the results to humans might but much more significant. Once we stop killing animals, we may start facing long term problems of people who suffer from many contortions due to lack of protein, vitamin B12, etc. C10) You'll save money I believe that becoming vegetarian has no money benefits. Even if we are still omnivores, we can still save money by not buying meat, and buying meat on and off. There are many ways to save money from food standards but I do not see that this is the reason why everyone becoming vegetarians are a necessity. Reconstructions: 1. "It is a right of choice, but we aren't saying that you HAVE to be a vegetarian, we are just saying that we prefer being a vegetarian. Alsowhy shoiuld you bother someone who is just eating vegetables? It is not against the law either, so you can just leave hem alone and let the citizens have the right to choose what they cane eat." I am very confused here. They suddenly say that you don't have to be vegetarian, but they prefer being vegetarian. What is the point of this debate then? You are arguing why we need to have This House (America) to be vegetarian as it says on the resolution? They have basically agreed to us that the citizens have the right to choose what they can eat. That is exactly what we are saying in this argument! Their side basically notions that making America become vegetarian means they are forcing their citizens. 2.As I said, if they eat they meat, it is their choice because they wouldn't get in jail. it is their choice and they can follow it or reject. As I said in my first rebuttal, we just prefer, it and it is their right to want to eat meat or just be a vegetarian. Yes, exactly. It is their right. That is why I am on con. In my argument, I am just saying that it is very hard to ensue such a law, and therefore should not be put into change of our status quo. 3. Yes, this is true, but then when we eat beans, it is healthier for us. Meat contains a lot of fat and bad chemicals for you. Beans may be healthier, but in what stance? As I explained in my argument, beans (which is referred as plants because they grow from plants) do not have the same vegetables and PLANTS do not have same amino acid profile as meat does to us and simply isn't bio-available enough to be able to use efficiently. Thus, beans are ineffective to protein and that we must need meat in order to survive. Without the enough amino acid profile, we are looking towards struggles to develop muscle tissues easier and become weaker and our digestion function suffering. Our skin goes unhealthy. We are slower to heal wounds and scars on us. On a scale, without becoming vegetarian we have much more benefits, as becoming one has more harms. Either way, they have not refuted our Vitamin B12 argument, assuming they have no sayings on this. Lets use some impact calculus: Severity. Side Pro is looking at the fact that it is damaging our environment, health and people. However, these are not as severe as we think that are. Side con wins for this because our impacts are severe, as it hurts the peoples health's especially. Probability: It is not likely to enforce rules to make America vegetarian. It is simply not likely to ensue that everyone does not eat meat Timeframe: They only talk about short term impacts but our impacts last longterm. They have not reconstructed their case, nor refuted properly, whereas I have reconstructed, refuted and kept on defending my side properly. In a way, it seems like they have conceded. Good debate with side pro Vote Con! 1) http://www.mnn.com... 2) http://www.dailymail.co.uk...