Resolved: A vegan diet is superior to low carbohydrate diets.

IntroductionIn his opening argument my opponent presents two arguments against veganism, both of which I will address in this rebuttal.The Health ArgumentP1) A low carbohydrate diet is more healthy than a vegan dietP2) We should do what is healthier for our body.C1) We should adopt a low carbohydrate diet.Premise 1"It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes."(1)My opponent justifies this premise by listing several nutrients vegans lack. I will in response list briefly how vegans can easily reach optimal supply of them.Subpoint ADue to character limitations I am not able to respond to every single nutrient my opponent listed, but instead I focused on the three he highlighted.Vitamin B12Con says B12 levels are always low in a vegan's serum. However his corresponding source does not even contain the words "vitamin" or "B12". As such I am left wondering where his information stems from. I propose direct supplementation and fortified breakfast cereal to counter possible shortcomings.Omega-3 Fatty AcidsHere the relevant omega-3 fatty acids are DHA and EPA. Both of which can be found in fish. However it is not the fish itself producing them, it is the microalgea they eat. Again, fortified food and supplements can carry ones supply.Additionally flaxseed, flaxseed oil, canola oil, soy products, hemp products, and walnuts among other foods contain ALA, from which the human body can produce DHA and EPA (1).IronIt is true, we absorb more iron from animal than from plant based products. However vitamin C for example enhances the absorption rate of non-hem iron (3) (4). Decreasing the consumption of inhibitors, like phytates or tannins, furthers one's absorption rate even more (4).In the end drinking a glass of orange juice before every meal provides more than enough vitamin C to achieve sufficient iron supply.Foods containing large amounts of iron include various beans, tofu, fortified breakfast cereals, cashews, various seeds, spinach and lentils (5).The RDA for iron is 8 mg/day for adult men and one cup of cooked soybeans already includes 8.8mg of iron (5).Subpoint BTestosteroneOn the contrary, it is not the vegans and vegetarians who have significantly lower testosterone, it is the vegans who have higher testosterone than both vegetarians and meat-eaters.“"The results did not support the hypothesis that meat-eaters have higher levels of bioavailable androgens [testosterone] than non meat-eaters. No differences in hormone levels were found between meat-eaters and lacto-ovo-vegetarians, suggesting that vegetarian diets may not alter prostate cancer risk, but the relatively low IGF-I levels in vegans might reduce their risk of prostate cancer." (5)Alzheimer's DiseaseI was not able to view the whole study and the abstract never said anything specifically about vegans. Therefore I will present general means to reduce the risk of Alzheimer's diseaseCoffee contains caffeine, antioxidants, and other phytochemicals, all of which affect disease risks. Recent studies reveal that coffee helps to reduce the risk of Alzheimer's and Parkinsons's disease (6).Furthermore, it has been shown that apple juice (7) and ginger (8) also reduce the risk.Child DevelopmentFrom the study my opponent cited:"The results of this study show that children can be successfully reared on a vegan diet providing sufficient care is taken to avoid the known pitfalls of a bulky diet and vitamin B12 deficiency."(9)HDL & Heart DiseaseFrom the study my opponent cited:"risk is reduced most effectively when trans fatty acids and saturated fatty acids are replaced with cis unsaturated fatty acids."(10)Cis unsaturated fatty acids such as ALA.Sperm CountIt should be noted that the cited study compared the semen of 471 meat-eaters and 5 vegans. It is anecdotal at best. This was a study of men who were patients at an infertility clinic. The area around the clinic is populated by the Seventh-day Adventists, so a lack of possible participants could not have been the reason for the low amount of vegetarians and vegans. It might just be because vegans are less likely to need infertility treatments. Moreover the sperm count was not low enough to raise infertility concerns, they were well within the normal range. (11) Researchers suspected B12 sufficiencies, a problem that can easily be rectified.Please understand that again due to character limitations I was no able to cover every single point made by my opponent. If you think I was to brief on some of them, keep in mind that listing deficiencies is one thing, presenting solutions is another.Subpoint CI don't advocate the lipid hypothesis and I don't know why I should have the "burden to prove that [the] lipid hypothesis is correct". If anything the burden is on my opponent to demonstrate why I need to support this hypothesis.Premise 2My opponent takes this premise to be self evident, however I disagree.Ethical Self SacrificeConsider a mother whose children are endangered or just any person saving the life of multiple others at the expense of their own. In those cases nobody in their right mind would advise the mother to do what is healthier for her body, we would praise her for her sacrifice. I do not suggest that we should never do what is good for our health by any means. However put as an universal prescription this premise is plainly false.Benefiting OthersLet's pretend that veganism actually brings some minor health deficits. Perhaps you would not be able to become a top athlete anymore or would run into a slightly increased risk of becoming ill. The main motivation behind a vegan diet has always been to save the life's of innocents and veganism (dietary wise) is simply the best way of achieving this goal. Climate change among other things is a problem everyone should care about and everyone can contribute to solving."So I want to highlight the fact that among options for mitigating climate change, changing diets is something one should consider." - Dr. Pachauri, chair of the IPCC ()Even if I would have to sacrifice some minor things mentioned above, I can in return contribute to a truly greater goal. Why vegan? Because it sets a sign.The Permissibility ArgumentP1)If animals are not morally equivalent to humans, then it is okay to eat them.P2) Animals are not morally equivalent to humans.C1) It is okay to eat animals.Premise 1Equality and ObligationIf one was given the choice to either rescue a pregnant mother or an elderly man with perhaps only months left to live, then I don't think many would favor the man. The elderly man is not morally equivalent to the woman. If we were to meet him on the street however we would certainly not try to eat him if we just happen to be hungry. Even if animals are not morally equivalent to humans, it does not follow that they have no moral status. Lesser obligation is not equal to no obligation.Ecosystem InterventionI am not sure why Con brings up the conversion of carnivorous animals to support this premise. However it should be noted that human interference with an ecosystem will most likely lead to its ruin. Arguing it would be better for animals to be where they cannot be eaten or suffer from disease is the same reasoning American slave traders used to justify taking African people out of the "dangerous wilderness".Moral AnimalsMy opponent claims that animals cannot comprehend morality, but this is not true. Chimpanzees disprove of wrong doings among their peers, just as packs are organized in complex social structures (). It might be true that they don't understand our morality, but we on the other hand understand theirs, at least in part, yet willfully decide to violate it.Cognitive CapacitiesIt should again be noted that this moral nature is not something all humans poses (as I have argued in my opening statement).Why only Animals?If a bodily desire for meat justifies this premise, then I would ask: why limit yourself to non-humans? After all, we are just as capable to consume any human flesh to meet out nutritional needs (avoiding the brain and spinal cord to not risk Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease). Either we accept both meat sources or none.Premise 2Participation and Moral NatureTo refute this premise one only has to look at my opening discussion. Not even all humans can participate in "human culture" and yet it is not permissible to eat them.It is not clear what is meant by "moral theory", because I can think of at least five different normative moral theories (utilitarianism, natural law, divine command, virtue ethics, deontological ethics), all taking different stances on this issue, depending on the particular version of the corresponding theory. I would argue that because they experience pain and pleasure much like we do, we have a moral obligation towards them.Unnecessary SufferingMy opponents claims animal abuse is bad not because it violates an animal's rights (nor because it causes suffering), but because it is unnecessary. But why does non-necessity amount to moral badness? If they truly are not part of "the moral sphere", then why should causing animals (unnecessary) suffering be bad in any way?It seems prima facie inconsistent to hold both beliefs and this demands explanation from my opponent.ConclusionThe arguments Con put forward have been rebutted and I await his objections to my opening statement.Sources in Comments