Pesci-Vegetarianism is beneficial

I must admit that your picture is quite misleading. Nevertheless, I apologize for the mix up, and forgive me if I continue to make that same mistake. Once more voters I urge you to put aside your bias, as hard as that may be, and enjoy the rebuttal that is about to be presented to you. It will be broken down into 4 different sections: • On Health • On Environmentalism • On Burden • and Conclusion ________________________________ On Health: My opponent leaves you with plenty of assumptions within her rebuttal. These consist of the following: -Vegetarians live 2 years longer than non-vegetarians -Vegetarians have a lower risk of a heart attack. -and that My protein argument is irrelevant because proper amounts of protein can be achieved. These three points, all given in my opponent's first paragraph are clearly assumptions on my opponent's behalf. I could easily counter these points with my own assumptions, but that is not the point of debate. Therefore, until my opponent offers evidence for as to why these points are not assumptions, these points must be dismissed. ___________ A. -Iron facts It appears as if a pesci-vegetarian consumes tons of iron. Almost as if the majority of there diet is in fact, iron-rich. As most of you may know, foods are to be taken on balance. Meaning, too much bread and pasta is bad, same with to much sweets. This is proven within the nutritionists approved food pyramid. Furthermore, this over-consumption of iron may have a negative impact upon your body, while my opponent advertises iron as a major part of a pesci-vegetarian diet, I warn you of the negative impact this overdose may do upon your body. Nonetheless, of ALL of the foods that my opponent has listed, none of these are prohibited by an omnivore diet. Meaning, whatever positive impact that you can gain from a pesci-vegetarian diet, you can achieve with an omnivore diet as well. This means that there isn't an inherent advantage to being a pesci-vegetarian, as all of the foods listed above could easily be consumed by an omnivore. Remember: By definition of beneficial, my opponent is arguing that there is an advantageous component to being a pesci-vegetarian, something that omnivores cannot achieve. Also note that my opponent has yet to offer a counter analysis regarding my protein argument. Therefore, she agrees that pesci-vegetarians cannot achieve a sufficient amount of protein. ___________ B. -Calcium and Zinc Milk, cereal, yogurt, cheese, oysters, beans, nuts, certain seafood, whole grains, fortified breakfast cereals and dairy product. These are the main sources of iron and zinc that my opponent has listed. Once again, these foods are not prohibited by an omnivorous diet, meaning that since these foods are not a specific advantageous benefit on her behalf, she does not gain any ground by listing them. Remember the definition of beneficial when regarding her arguments. She has yet to offer an advantageous component to pesci-vegetarianism. ____________ Overview of of "On Health" My opponent does not take into account my definition of beneficial, which is evident within her rebuttal. With that said, you ought to dismiss ANY analysis' that she offers listing a benefit that is not specific to pesci-vegetarianism (i.e. dismiss her entire rebuttal). Something I want you voters to remember is that being a pesci-vegetarian does not inherently make you a healthier person, whenever my opponent claims that pesci-vegetarians live longer and are healthier than non-pesci vegetarianism, she is influencing a sort of elitism, similar to that of white supremacy. What I mean is that my opponent is saying that pesci-vegetarians are essentially BETTER that non, this seat of elitism could lead to more conflict in this world. Though a way of eating may not SEEM like a big deal, we cannot afford another means of segregation in an already segregated society. ________________________________ On environmentalism: The assumptions once again are: - Over 100 animals are saved each year by pesci-vegetarianism, which reduces the demand for meat. - Greenhouse gases lead to global warming. (Global warming is highly disputable in existence, therefore it cannot be listed for means of concrete evidence.) - Pesci-vegetarians reduce pollution. ____________ - Methane and Nitrous Oxide http://www.goveg.com... I will attack this from the source, the source is obviously pro-global warming theory, at the bottom of the site it even says "write to Al Gore now", everything that my opponent mentions is basically ASSUMING that global warming actually exists. This is not a debate about whether or not it exists, that debate is quite prevalent within this debate site. What I mean is that, since the global warming theory has yet to be proven, there is no way you can accept this as concrete evidence, despite what your views are regarding global warming. Furthermore, cows have been around for millions of years (estimation), but despite that, people have lived quite well within our time of co-existence. We cannot blame cows for our pollution issues, don't you see how absurd that assumption sounds? ___________ -Jobs The ONLY thing that my opponent claims in regards to my analysis about lost jobs is that the transition should be made gradually. This locks my opponent into a solvency burden, meaning she must now prove how this is possible and how exactly this is beneficial to these people. Furthermore, my opponent cannot create a gradual movement of pesci-vegetarianism, there is NO way you can force people to eat on a diet and ON TOP OF THAT , make the movement gradual and under control. Not only is my opponent forcing us to eat what she thinks is right, but she is also kicking billions of people out of employment and destroying and multi-trillion dollar industry. The issue with pragmatism and efficiency is prevalent within my opponent's analysis, therefore you ought to dismiss it. To my other perspective, my opponent states that we should once again, control people and "decrease the demand so that people want to give up meat", I am not quite sure how someone can achieve this, and assuming that she CAN achieve this somewhat miraculous movement of "decreasing the demand" , that movement would restrict our freedoms and still destroy an establishment that has been around since the beginning of mankind, all because we want to lower CO2 emissions... _____________ Assumptions: Please ignore the random assumptions that my opponent has listed at the bottom of this point. She states stuff about lowering high blood pressure and eating unhealthy meat. Both of these issues are not a specific benefit to pesci-vegetarianism because they can be achieved by vegetarians. ___________________________________ On Burden: By the definition of "beneficial", my opponent must offer a substantial and unique benefit that you gain from pesci-vegetarianism. In that my opponent has yet to provide you with said benefit, you must default CON. ___________________________________ Conclusion: Throughout this rebuttal, I have proven to you that there lacks an inherent advantage in pesci-vegetarianism. Meaning, pesci-vegetarianism is not the most favorable way of eating comparatively. Furthermore, my opponent has yet to meet her burden, therefore you ought to default CON. Thanks for your time and consideration, - Protagoras of Abdera