Vegetarianism is wrong. Eating meat is the way to live.

You begin your argument by attacking my rationale that leads me away from eating human meat. To reiterate, my first claim was that humans are not part of our food chain and, furthermore, anthropophagy can lead to Couetzfeldt-Jakob syndrome. I would first like to point out that Couetzfeldt-Jakob syndrome is an incurable disease caused by pathogenic proteins that first cause insanity followed by death. Perhaps contracting a fatal human version of transmissible spongiform encephalopathy is not a valid reason according to you for avoiding human meat. But it is certainly a valid enough reason for me and most likely a large majority of others. You never mentioned the Couetzfeldt-Jakob syndrome. You only attacked the food chain. So I guess here is where the debate begins. Your response was "I do not believe you can naturally define any animals food chain. Especially under the theory of evolution." I will now show that just the opposite is true. Evolution is the main reason why there IS a food chain. The following is an excerpt from Chapter XIV of The Origin Of Species: "Numerous cases could be given of striking resemblances in quite distinct beings between single parts or organs, which have adapted for the same functions. A good instance is afforded by the close resemblance of the jaws of the dog and Tasmanian wolf or Thylacinus,--animals which are widely sundered in the natural system. But this resemblance is confined to general appearance, as in the prominence of the canines, and in the cutting shape of the molar teeth. For the teeth really differ much: thus the dog has on each side of the upper jaw four pre-molars and only two molars; whilst the Thylacinus has three pre-molars and four molars. The molars also differ much in the two animals in relative size and structure. The adult dentition is preceded by a widely different milk dentition. Any one may of course deny that the teeth in either case have been adapted for tearing flesh, through the natural selection of successive variations; but if this be admitted in the one case, it is unintelligible to me that it should be denied in the other. I am glad to find that so high an authority as Professor Flower has come to this same conclusion." The gist of this passage is that in at least one of the two species, the teeth have evolved for the purpose of tearing flesh. When animals evolve special adaptations to suit a particular diet, it is clear that there is a natural food source for each individual species. When all of the species living in the same area rely on one another for sustenance (along with the various forms of plants and fungi), an ecosystem develops. To anyone that views the intricate and dynamic relationship in an ecosystem, it is obvious that there is such a thing as a food chain or, more properly, food web. There are countless other examples of adaptations specifically designed for a particular food source. Many members of the mammalian order Edentata have developed elongated mouths and long sticky tongues for the purpose of feeding on insects. Dr. Peter Ducey of The State University of New York College at Cortland has done extensive research on the relationship between the toxic skin of amphibians and the evolution of snakes to resist such toxins. I have actually had the pleasure of meeting him and attending one of his lectures on this topic. For one final example, I will mention the Cnidarians (jellyfish, anemones). The Cnidarians have evolved specialized cells called cnidocytes which contain stinging projections called nematocysts. These are used for stinging and paralyzing prey. Now you have stated "It is my conclusion that each animal chooses its own food chain." Are we really to believe that the reason a jellyfish stings and consumes a fish is because it chooses to do so? Is this really a conscious choice on the part of the jellyfish? Could it choose to eat kelp instead? These questions are obviously rhetorical. The next argument you make is that humans no longer need to eat meat. This is something that even I have admitted, as you rightly point out. However, becoming a vegetarian simply because you can is not a valid or logical reason. There are many illogical and ridiculous things that someone can do. But just because one CAN do something, that is nowhere near enough justification to say that you SHOULD. Moving on, you claim that eating meat is immoral and wrong. You mention Darwin, but it is obvious to me, as it should be to the people reading this debate, that you have never read a single thing by Darwin. After mentioning all of the adaptations that animals have developed to consume other animals, I cannot see how evolution can be used to support the claim that it is immoral for one animal species to consume another. Now we come to your murder arguments. The main reason that murder is wrong is because man is a social species. All social species (with the rare exception of man) refrain from killing members of their own species without reason. The reasons for killing in the animal kingdom vary greatly. From obtaining territory, to obtaining food, to breeding, killing is seen constantly in the animal kingdom. You mention that killing is wrong because it may stop the evolution of another species. In actuality, evolution only occurs because of death. In Chapter VI of The Origin Of Species, at the very beginning of the section entitled "Organs of little apparent Importance, as affected by Natural Selection" it states: "...natural selection acts by life and death,-- by the survival of the fittest, and by the destruction of the less well-fitted individuals--" From here you dedicate several paragraphs to refute a claim that I NEVER MADE! (i.e. that humans are better than every other species) On this, there are only a few points that I would like to make. First off, you use Hitler as an example of mankind thinking himself greater than others. I find this extremely ironic since the general consensus among historians is that Hitler became a vegetarian on the advice of one of his doctors. The second point is that your last eight paragraphs are nothing more than a glorified version of the slogan "Meat is murder." Finally, it is wrong to spend so much time refuting a claim that I never made. You've made statements such as "Finally if you would like to stick with the idea that man is the most important greatest form of life..." How can I possibly stick with an idea that I never put forth? This is an obvious attempt to deceive the readers of this debate into thinking that I have made such claims, and I consider it very unsportsmanlike. I hope the readers will note this and read through everything I've written to see that you have put words in my mouth. Perhaps this underhanded tactic is how you win debates.