We should move towards a world where everybody is vegan

Counter-Arguments:"Well do you believe that a parent is obliged to look after their child? And if so, on what grounds...because that child is only there as a result of their actions, and because making him unhappy is simply 'not nice'."-A parent is generally obliged to look after their child because they chose to have a child. They wanted to have offspring. It was their decision, thus they must take responsibility of their decision. In many cases, parents do not feel obliged to look after their child if they did not choose to have it, such as in rape or unplanned pregnancy. In these cases, the fetus is generally aborted, or the child put up for adoption.-My parents have made me unhappy many times, and I'm sure yours has too. While we might think this is "not nice", that doesn't make it immoral. "And so we have no obligation to do the 'right' thing because all that matters is our individual desires."-This is the fourth instance in which Pro has conceded to my points. "We merely do what we please...we are also not obliged to do anything, thus rendering the word meaningless."-Not true. If you come from a biological standpoint like you just did, every living organism has two obligations: survive and reproduce. And in nature, this generally implies out competing other species, in which case, we are actually obliged to eat meat. -But as sophisticated, intelligent beings, we have developed the Human Rights."we have no obligation to do the 'right' thing because all that matters is our individual desires. This is true. However it may not be true if God exists. But non the less, without evidence of God, we cannot bring him into the discussion."-This is Pro's fifth concession.-Pro has stated that we have no obligation to do the right thing unless God exists, yet concedes that there is no evidence of God, negating his entire argument on morality."your are correct, we are not necessarily obliged to be vegan."-This is Pro's sixth concession."it's immoral to make billions of fellow beings suffer horrifically in order to achieve that goal, when other options are just as easy to take."-Pro has brought morality back into the equation after negating his argument on morality, contradicting himself. -Even so, Pro has not explained why providing your population with food at the expense of animals dying is immoral.-Furthermore, this is based only off of Pro's sense of morality. People have different ideas of morality. Therefore, you cannot argue using your definition of morals until you prove your morals are the correct morals, which you haven't done."we ARE obliged to act unnaturally (whatever that actually means), if it means we are doing the 'right' thing."-And how is what we were doing right now the "wrong" thing? How is becoming vegan the "right" thing? Again, you are using your own set of morals, which do not apply to everyone."For instance a tiger has to stalk its prey, she will have to single out a weak member of the herd, then she will chase it and there is a very high possibility that she will fail to catch."-Actually, if a tiger singled out the weak member of the herd, the possibility that she will fail is close to nothing. The weakling of the herd has essentially no chance of escaping because the rest of the herd will run as fast as they can, leaving the weakling (who assumingly runs slower than the rest). "Are you really comparing claws to factory farms?"-Yes I am. You said that we hunted animals using unfair methods. Tigers having claws is unfair for the prey, just like us having intelligent brains capable of creating factory farms is unfair."We are not in the ice age anymore."-Actually, there is evidence to believe that an ice age is coming soon. [1]"Necessities change over time."-Except for food. Food is always a necessity."The British empire and USA may not have been without slavery, does this mean we shouldn't condemn it?"-Pro has committed a fallacy by affirming the disjunct. [2] -Pro is assuming that because our ancestors did unethitical things to advance society, and since eating meat is something our ancestors did to advance our society, eating meat is unethical.-Furthermore, we only condemn it in most cases today because of the Human Rights [3], which does not condemn eating meat."You say "the fact our ancestors did it is enough to justify it" I simply believe this to be absolutely foolish."-The fact that our ancestors did is not enough to justify it. The fact that they did it and it has benefited humanity justifies it. This would also justify the slavery that helped advance our society in the past. But slavery doesn't help as much today. At the same time, not being a vegan has benefited society dramatically.-Here in Thailand, we've recently had a lot of Japanese restaurants open up. They are very popular, and our local economy has never been so good. The Japanese restaurants offer many dishes containing meat. And because of how good they are, more and more consumers are consuming, contributing to our economy."This mentality of yours, is the reason society takes so long to change socially. I'm upset because you are intelligent and yet still think this way."-Pro has committed ad hominen.-This is a formal debate. This "mentality" of mine is none of your business. This might not even be how I think. For all you know, I might be playing devil's advocate (which I am by the way). -I used to believe passionately in certain fundamental Buddhist ideals. I even tried being a vegetarian when I was 13. After three months, I fainted in school a couple of times. I also craved my favorite foods (which contained meat), so I stopped. So you see, my "mentality" might not be how you perceive it."They do not know how much they suffer."-Many of them do, and it has not affected them very much. I've had to butcher live animals before to eat, such as fish and chickens. I know first hand how much they suffer. And I don't think much about their suffering when I eat them. -Many schools are raising awareness on how our food is prepared. My whole school had to watch a documentary called "Food Inc." [4] The documentary covers where our meat is from and shows us first hand the animals who suffer. Nevertheless, everyone in my school continued to eat meat."Should we of kept slavery too then, to ensure the slave merchants kept their jobs?"-No, because slavery violates Human Rights."according to your logic, we should never improve the society because of short term consequences."-Short term consequences? We're talking billions of people losing their jobs here! I don't think you understand the economic impact this could mean. This might be a short term problem if more jobs were created to replace the ones lost, but that is impossible. Without meat, the product diversity of the market is dramatically decreased.-I eat at a local fast food joint very often. And there's a waiter there who's only option was to work in a restaurant because no other jobs would accept him. His mom is in the hospital due to cancer and his dad died a while back. He had to drop out of school to work in a restaurant to earn money for his mom's medical bills, and that's not enough! After work, he plays his guitar in the streets, begging people to spare a coin or two. And yet, he can only barely support his mom. What is he going to do if he is jobless? Let his mom die? I wouldn't mind if he had to serve 100 cows worth of beef, as long as he can help his mom."I am saying that we should gradually move towards that world"-Which would result in billions of people gradually losing their jobs."What offence has the animal committed?"-In most cases, nothing. We just want to eat the animal."It takes 100x more clean water to make meat"-Like I explained, water is not a huge issue as it is a renewable resource and by the time the meat is being eaten, the water would have dispersed into the clouds and oceans."it costs about ten times the weight of grain to get an amount of meat."-And if we ate grain instead of meat, we'd have to eat ten times more grain to be full."the question is only about whether its sufficient enough as a reason to go vegan."-And I have explained why its not sufficient enough."if we don't eat cows why would so many of them exist?"-By breeding. Now, we have cows in farms and factories. We can control the amount they breed and their population. If we are vegan, we have to let them go, and there is no one to stop them from humping each other dry."Why would we continue to breed animals on such a scale if we stopped using them?"-They breed themselves."If you eat loads of food that is bad for your health, you will be less happy. For instance you will get ill more often, you will die earlier and you may not feel energetic and content."-Not true. I eat loads of food that is bad for my health, and I am very happy from it.-The news and media are filled with articles on how meat is unhealthy. But people still eat them because it brings them happiness.-I can say with credibility that me, and many people I know, would rather die when we're 65 and having eaten delicious food that we like, than to die when we're 100 and to not have the pleasure of our favorite foods.Sources:[1] http://www.cbn.com...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://www.samaritanmag.com...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org....*Pro has continued his argument in the comments. This is a violation of debate restrictions, as it allows for him to go over the 10,000 word limit, giving him an unfair advantage. I will disregard his argument in the comments section until he posts it in the next round.