Every adult in first world countries should be vegan.

Con thesis: The pro thesis is absolutist and not every adult living in a first world country should be Vegan. There are five main points to my argument. Economy, Health/Survival, Developing Countries CON CASE- Economy- Claim: The meat industry is extremely valuable to the world's economy Warrant: (Using the United States as an example) "In 2013, more than 482,100 workers were directly employed in the meat and poultry packing and processing industries, according to data from the North American Meat Institute (NAMI). Their combined salaries total more than $19 billion, it said. With suppliers and distributors included, that number climbs to 6.2 million jobs and generates $864.2 billion annually, or roughly 6 percent of the entire U.S. GDP, it said." (1) Impact: Following the warrant, eliminating the meat industry is not economically viable and would result in severe economic consequences. Health/Survival- Claim: Humanity in present day could not survive a worldwide vegetarian/vegan diet Warrant: Our resources are not sustainable enough and would not be even without the meat industry's negative environmental effects. the notion that an ideal form of food production operating with a minimal environmental impact should exclude meat " nothing less than enacting "vegetarian imperative" (Saxena 2011) on a global scale " does not make sense. "This is because both grasslands and croplands produce plenty of phytomass that is not digestible by humans and that would be, if not regularly harvested, simply wasted and left to decay. In addition, processing of crops to produce milled grains, plant oils and other widely consumed foodstuffs generates a large volume of by-products that make (as described in Chapter 4) perfect animal feeds. Rice milling strips typically 30% of the grain"s outermost layers, wheat milling takes away about 15%: what would we do with about 300 Mt of these grain milling residues, with roughly the same mass of protein-rich oil cakes left after extraction of oil (in most species accounts for only 20"25% of oilseed phytomass), and also with the by-products of ethanol (distillers grain) and dairy industries (whey), waste from fruit and vegetable canning (leaves, peels), and citrus rinds and pulp?" (2) Impact: An unsustainable food/vegan farming system to replace the old one. No change in sustainability. Developing Countries- Claim: Developing Countries rates of meat consumption are rapidly rising Warrant: "Developing countries have very diverse food consumption patterns and agricultural production systems. The proportion of meat in national diets varies from negligible in some countries in central Africa to 30-40% in some countries in Latin America and Mongolia. However, the demand for meat in developing countries is increasing rapidly (53%/year from 1982 to 1993), as the result of population growth and the trend for people to move to the cities. Growth rates in consumption are greatest in Asia, with China dominating the statistics, in view of the size of its population. Theoretically, livestock production can be increased to meet this demand, but the multiple roles of livestock in developing countries must be recognized if this is to be achieved in a sustainable manner. Resource-poor farmers who keep livestock may value more highly their contribution to livelihoods and to crop production, through provision of draught power and improvements in soil fertility through the recycling of manure, than the production of more meat. Recognition of the goals of the farmer and the wishes of the consumer regarding meat quality need to be reflected in the way in which opportunities for increasing meat production are identified and communicated to farmers. The impact of the global economy on cereal prices, for example, will also influence which interventions will be economically viable. Interpretation of information in an integral manner, using geographical information systems, mathematical models and/or simple spreadsheet models will be an important ingredient in turning scientific knowledge into increased meat production in developing countries." (3) Impact: there are multiple warrants within this argument and therefore multiple impacts. The first is that developing countries have seen a major rise in meat production and will therefore offset benefits to eliminating meat industries in the united states. The second is that farmers in developing countries continue to produce more without regards to the environment and health, leaving countries that have eliminated the meat industry unable to help them for moral and political reasons. On the flip side, if they did help developing countries eliminate their meat industries, the global economy would be tanked (no warrant, see first claim). The third warrant is that the meat industries in these countries will continue to grow despite drawbacks, meaning developing countries then have a moral obligation to assist them in order to preserve their populations and the environment, which turns the pro impacts. REBUTTALS- Ethics- Rights are unique to human beings rights only have meaning within a moral community only human beings live in a moral community adult mammals don't understand or practice living according to a moral code the differences in the way human beings and adult mammals experience the world are morally relevant therefore rights is a uniquely human concept and only applies to human beings (4) AND No impact to ethics, it's mere philosophical speculation Arbitrary Lines- concede this claim, it has no link to the argument, neither King nor Dawkins practiced veganism and are not credible sources. The evidence was shifted to try to favor pro's argument and should therefore be dropped in the debate. Humane Washing- http://www.qmscotland.co.uk... This link gives multiple reasons as to why meat is good for humans, meaning that there is a reason behind killing animals (to eat) and is therefore not an "unnecessary harm" AND I question the logic of this argument on my opponent's part. If animals are not being treated inhumanely, the harms of factory farming go away and thus so do environmental impacts, and all this is because OF cage-free and similar methods, why get rid of them? Couldn't that model be used to then help developing countries to become more sustainable, and wouldn't that be better overall? This particular argument is meant as a challenge of logic rather than a direct rebuttal Environment- Counter Claim- Grazing is necessary to a sustainable ecosystem (5) AND cattle do not contribute greatly to greenhouse gases (5) AND optimal farming includes animals. This outweighs the impacts of the pro argument (5) (The quotes from source (5) are quite lengthy so i did not insert them verbatim) Health- Counter-Claim: Studies for the health setbacks of meat are inconclusive and contradicted by credible sources. In one cohort study, scientists studied 11,000 people, 57 percent of whom were omnivores (meat eaters) and the other 43 percent were vegetarians. Both groups were health conscious. Yet in this study, researchers found the overall death rates were cut in half for both health-conscious meat eaters and for vegetarians, as compared to the average person eating a western-style, processed food diet. The study concluded that for the vegetarians, there was no benefit found; and for the meat eaters, there was no increased risk for heart disease, cancer or death. (6) (1)http://www.nbcnews.com... (2) http://www.scientificamerican.com... (3) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... (4) http://www.bbc.co.uk... (5) http://articles.mercola.com... (6) http://drhyman.com...