Veganism is immoral

Thanks Con! Right out of the batting box, it should be pointed out that Con isn't arguing for Veganism, but for vegetarianism. While the two diets are similar, there is a necessary distinction between them in regards to consumption of animal by-products and the types of produce eaten. A vegetarian will eat animal byproducts such a milk, cheese, and honey; A vegan will only eat organic produce. With this in mind, the health argument is invalid as the Livestrong article that Con posts doesn't speak a word on the benefits of being a vegan. It talks about being vegetarian. And while we're at it, I'd like to point out that making a claim and posting a detached article is not legitimate argumentation. It's not my job to warrant my opponent's arguments for him, he has to decide which ones he believes to be the best and argue them for himself. The economic, health, environmental and abuse arguments are out the window until Con actually makes the arguments instead of just referring to them in a general manner. Aside from all that, can I just point how PETA is not a legitimate source? These are the people who waste millions of dollars a year on attack ads against irrelevant public figures[6] all the while killing 89.4% of the animals in their shelters[7]. Pretty immoral if you ask me. [6] http://features.peta.org... [7] http://www.consumerfreedom.com... Sorry Con, but if you want to debate, you'll have to write your own arguments. I'm debating you, not the internet. Going on to defend my own arguments, I'd like to point out that the waste is still a big issue in this Debate. As Con stated my burden is to prove that 'a vegan diet is immoral as it deprives the human body of nutrients necessary to maximize health and human potential.' So when we realize that a staggering 15% of the population goes hungry every year[8], insisting on eating only organic produce and no meat destroys human potential. We're wasting 48 million pounds of food every year at the retail level[4] in America alone. Depriving people of sustainable, affordable and nonperishable food is absolutely essential. [8] http://www.worldhunger.org... I'd also like to hear Con's answer as to how traditional fishing communities such as Japan, Alaska, and Kamchatka would be able to survive in the event they were told they could no longer eat meat. Moving on to the nutrition argument, we see that Con is making the mistake of posting detached articles again. Not only that, but many of these articles fail to address the arguments I originally make. The nutrition argument was a minor one anyway. On protein; while it is possible to obtain simple proteins from organic vegetables, it is not possible to gain complete proteins with all 9 necessary amino acids[9]. One could possibly use several different vegetables to get such nutrients, but this isn't a sustainable approach in areas where any kind of food is scarce. If you live in rural Alaksa, a single fish would do the job of several expensive vegetables. [9] http://thinksteroids.com... This is a similar principle with Zinc, Vitamin A, Vitamin D and B12. One may get some of these through vegetables, but a sustainable amount can't be provided to all people. I'd also like to point out my opponent's conduct here; Con isn't treating me with a whole lot of respect in his rebuttals, and that isn't cool. Finally as for the baby argument, Con isn't even responding to the claim I originally made. My argument was one of evolutionary adaption, and how the complex proteins in meat were essential to human evolution. In the absence of such proteins the human brain doesn't grow as much[5]. It's not an issue of 'is my baby fed?', it's an issue of 'am I doing what's best for my offspring?' Back to you Con.