Animals should be slaughtered to provide people with food.

Con begins her argument by arguing humans have done bad things, and they have done bad things to others because they deemed others as not counting. This argument is incorrect and not valid to the debate. Obviously people attack poultry because the poultry has value. If the poultry had no value ( didn't count ) there would be no reason to breed and kill them. " Be aware I may copy and paste arguments I have made from other debates" Go for it. I've seen your other debates. I would reccomend against it though, based on the fact those arguments aren't pertinent to this debate. Or even the debates they appeared in. For example- In one debate where you argue that eating animals is wrong, you bring up how your family was kicked out of a resturaunt for having a black family member[1]. This appeal to emotion on issues not pertaining to the debate is baffling. The story is also very suspect. In R1 con gave a list of animal attributes and said if I contend any of them she will provide sources. Attributes I contend- 2. Belonging to complex societies- if it doesn't come close to the complexity of human society, then this attribute is deceptive. 6. Possessing great intelligence- please give examples any animal who's intellect rivals DaVinci or Tesla. Having a brain that works differently is not evidence. Con after listing attributes pulled from several different animals to make them seem equal to humans then goes on to list how they suffer to get on our plate. These claims of suffering are a little exaggerated to say the least and the sources are biased. I don't have adequate space to criticize each source individually, but if you look at the PETA source you will see an article on the mistreatment of animals.the article doesn't discuss or mention where their information came from. Con mentions the slicing of a chicken's throat as a form of cruelty. Slicing an animals throat provides a quick death and is probably the most humane way you could reasonably kill any animal. In my opponents immorality section she compares the eating of meat to rape of human women and the holocaust. I don't have anything to add to that statement. My opponent asserts that factory farming is the main source of salmanella and Ecoli. This is obvious seeing as the Ecoli and salmonella come from the animal your eating. Most cases of food borne illness can be prevented in the consumer's kitchen where thoroughly cooking your food and having proper hygiene goes a long way [2] Con asserts that Factory farms play a major role in soil runoff and global warming. When you examine her source though you see it's an article that provides no sources for where the guy gets his information. It appears to just be a propaganda piece on an extremely biased website. Contention 1- Any diet that doesn't involve meat is unsustainable. Going without meat for the rest of your life is near impossible. The alternative to a diet consisting of at least some meat is just not feasible. As many as 75% of people who go on a vegetarian diet give it up[3]. The 25% who remain typically don't last beyond 7 years either. The fact is we need to kill animals for food because there is something in our biology that gives us such an intense urge for this type of food that it is futile to resist it. Contention 2- Plant based diets are bad for the environment. Environmental arguments against meat eating are nullified by environmental arguments against plant eating. About 90 percent of U.S. cropland suffers from topsoil loss at 13 Times the sustainable rate[4]. 92% of U.S. Soybeans ( a vegetarian staple protein) are planted with genetically modified Soy, immune to herbicides[5]. This immunity allows Soy farmers to douse their fields With large quantities of weed-killing herbicides which are toxic to other plants and fish. Some scientists worry that increased herbicide use could lead to " super weeds "[6]. Processed vegetarian protein options such as tofu can cause more greenhouse gas pollution than farming meat. A 2010 report from the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) found that the production of soy-based proteins such as tofu could contribute more to greenhouse gas emissions than eating locally produced meat. [12] According to a peer-reviewed 2009 study, giving up all animal products would only give a 7% reduction in green house gas emissions, [13] not enough to be worth the dietary sacrifice. Contention 3- My comfort is more important then any animals. Animals taste good. Unless a reason is given to care about the comfort of animals then any argument that takes into account the suffering of animals is invalid. My argument is that animals should be killed to feed humans. One of the reasons they should be killed to feed humans is because they taste good. If an animal's suffering is to be taken into account before deciding to order a Mcdouble please explain why anyone should care about the suffering of animals slaughtered to provide most people food. Arguments comparing the suffering of humans to that of animals aren't good enough. I have reason to care about the suffering of people. The reason is because protecting the rights of the oppressed actually gives a nice buffer zone to me and by extension protects my rights. Contention 4- vegetarianism isn't neccesarily as healthy as meat eating. My opponent may point out that being a vegetarian is a healthier alternative to meat eating. This is simply not true and it's merely propaganda used by animal rights organizations to lure people away from eating meat. 2 out of every 3 vegetarians are vitamin b12 deficient [7]. Eating meat provides a better source of Iron then a vegetarian diet? The body absorbs 15% to 35% of the heme iron in meat, but only absorbs 2% to 20% of the non-heme iron found in vegetarian sources like leafy greens and beans [8]. A meat-centered diet can help with weight loss. It takes fewer calories to get protein from lean meat than it does from vegetarian options. One serving of lean beef (3 oz.) contains as much protein as one serving of beans (1" cups) or a veggie burger. However, the lean beef has half the calories of beans (180 vs. 374), and 50%-75% fewer calories than the veggie burger. [9][10] Some of these myths of vegetarians being healthier are myths that stem from the fact that vegetarians tend to be more health concious. If we stopped slaughtering animals today then forced everyone onto a vegetarian diet then the rate of health concious people to non health concious people wouldn't change, and you would see that mortality rates would remain the same [11]. Contention 5- Killing animals isn't neccesarily morally superior to killing plants Vegetarians mistakenly elevate the value of animal life over plant life. Research shows that plants respond electrochemically to threats and may feel fear, [14] so vegetarians are also causing harm every time they kill and eat a plant. Contention 6- it's almost impossible to eat food without some animal being slaughtered Vegetarian diets can cause the death of animals too. According to a 2003 study by Steven Davis at Oregon State University, about six animals per acre, or 52-77% of the animals (such as birds, mice, and rabbits) that live in agricultural crop fields, are killed during harvest. [15] So if your against slaughtering animals so people can be provided with food, then plants and animals are both off the table. What does con propose that we eat? Summary- 1. Animals taste good. Unless reason is given for why an animals comfort should be taken into account by the typical meat eater, then there comfort should not be taken into consideration. 2. The alternative to a meat eating diet is unsustainable. It is futile for most people to resist the urge to eat meat. 3. Environmental problems stem from human consumption regardless of if the consumption comes in the form of plants or animals. 4. Dietary needs are more conveniently met through a diet consisting of protein then one without. 5. Killing plants isn't neccesarily morally superior to killing animals. 6. It's nearly impossible to eat anything without killing an animal. Sources [1] http://www.debate.org... [2] http://www.cdc.gov... [3] http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com... [4] David Pimentel and Marcia Pimentel, " Sustainability of Meat-Based and Plant-Based Diets and the Environment" American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2003. [5] http://vegetarian.procon.org... [6] http://vegetarian.procon.org... [7] Wolfgang Herman, et al., " Vitamin B-12 status! Particularly Hobotranscobalamin ll and Methyllmalonic acid concentrations, and Hyperhomocysteinemia In vegetarians," American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, July 2003 [8] http://vegetarian.procon.org... [9] National Cattlemen's Beef Association, "Proteins Are Not Created Equal," www.beefnutrition, 2009 [10] Courtney Hutchison, "Nutritionist Does Twinkie and Steak Diet, Loses Weight," www.abcnews.go.com, Sep. 30, 2010 [11] Jenny Chang-Claude, Silke Hermann, Ursula Eilber, et al., "Lifestyle Determinants and Mortality in German Vegetarians and Health-Conscious Persons: Results of a 21-Year Follow-Up," Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers [12] http://vegetarian.procon.org... [13] Helmi Risku-Norja, et al., "Dietary Choices and Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Assessment of Impact of Vegetarian and Organic Options at National Scale,""Progress in Industrial Ecology, 2009 [14] Derrick Jensen, "The Plants Respond: An Interview with Cleve Backster," The Sun, July 1997 [15] United States Department of Labor, "Industries with the Highest Nonfatal Total Cases, Incidence Rates for Injuries and Illnesses, Private Industry, 1998," stats.bls.gov, Dec. 1999