Vegans practicing on moral principle ought to become Freegan instead

To start out with the framework discussion, this argument is abusive because it should have never taken place. In Con's first round he claims that the framework arguments needed to be made because I fail to define a vegan morality, and thus my arguments are mute because there is no moral standard to contrast Freeganism to. This discussion takes focus away from the on-case clash comparing Veganism and Freeganism which effectively derails the public emphasis of the debate. Aside from that Con claims that his arguments are not semantic as they are sincere. Regardless, they hinge on the technical definition of vegan morality, and are thus an argument of semantics. Con's been around long enough to know that a semantic argument is a definition argument, so there's really no excuse here. Aside from that, because the burden is shared, he should have just argued for Veganism coming from the moral standard he found appropriate. Instead, he derailed the on case discussion to be one of morality instead of these two diets. Morality is an element of this debate, but it's not the prime focus. Further, an individual not experienced with debate culture, jargon, or practices wouldn't know what an 'a priori' issue is in the first place. So when he claims I'm unwarranted in my moral standard of reducing waste by assuming it to be a priori moral, he continues to make the debate more technical than it should be. Also this argument is new. Reducing waste it a good thing, and is something we should promote. For con to try and exclude that argument on the basis of a term in the resolution (via Con's *should* analysis) is about as semantic as you can get. At this point I've spent more than half of my character allotment for this round discussing a framework of morality instead of how the moral principles behind these diets work for good. The inclusion of prohibiting framework and semantic arguments was meant to circumvent this kind of clash. But because Con has insisted on breaking these rules now I have less than 2000 characters to discuss the on-case debate. Con finally addressed my market demand argument, but he doesn't actually refute it. Instead he claims that I'm priming him to make logical fallacies. The comparison to slavery isn't applicable here since slave-owners didn't eat their slaves, and since slaves could still live productive lives after being released from slavery. Once an animal is dead, it's dead. If meat is being thrown away, eating it doesn't contribute to the market demand of meat, and so doesn't contribute to more animals being slaughtered. A Freegan would just as soon eat a box of pop-tarts if it were being thrown away as she would a rib-eye steak. Either way she reduces waste, which is something a vegan does not do. Further, this encompasses a vegan morality as it does not contribute to the poor treatment of animals. As I said in the beginning, we're not trying to imagine a world where everyone is vegan or Freegan, so Freegans can maintain the moral impacts of reducing animal suffering. Con argues that it doesn't matter whether or not more animals are slaughtered so long a one doesn't lend themselves to the practice which causes the slaughter, but this ignores the fact that Freeganism doesn't lend to the practices which cause animals to be slaughtered. Further this a cop-out of as Veganism doesn't reduce suffering. Freeganism is then morally superior since it reduces the same amount of suffering (none) with the added benefit of reducing waste. Finally, the means and ends argument is a new one, but it still doesn't justify Veganism as a morally superior diet. While it's true that means and ends are ultimately linked, you don't solve immoral means by ignoring their ends. This is a core tenet to the market demand argument; by demanding food one finds less objectionable, they don't do away with what they do find objectionable. They do however manage to compound waste, which is something Freegans actually solve for.