The Slaughter of Animals for the Consumption of Meat Ought to Cease

MORALITYMy opponent does correctly point out that some people do not view this issue in the same way as I do. I think it would be silly to argue that morals are anything but subjective, so I do admit I'm on slightly shaky ground when I make my moral consistency arguments. Despite this admission, I believe there are some legitimate things I can add to this particular aspect of the debate.Firstly, I think I'm in the right when I say that the vast majority of people who acknowledge that morals are subjective do not act as if morals are subjective. If we really acted as if morals were subjective, we'd not care about groups like ISIS or Al-Qaeda killing people for their religion. I mean, I know morals are subjective, but I still can't help run everything through an analysis of its utilitarian benefit or lack-thereof. So you might acknowledge that morals are subjective, and that my argument of morality is therefore unfounded, but as per how we usually act in the real world, you can still examine my proposition in comparison to your personal morality.That said, I'll extol my position a bit. Of course animals do not experience things on the level that we do, but we must know that they do experience things. Joy, pain, boredom. When you kill an animal, you cut off those experiences' natural length. You are ending a life; a life not like a humans I'll admit, therein meaning less damage is done in terms of life experiences being cut short, but it is still something. It is still a life that could have continued on. Something is still being killed, unnecessarily.My opponent proposed two moral systems as alternatives to mine. One was religion, which I won't bother to argue. The other was a secular view unaligned with mine, that, "self-awareness, imagination, and the ability to engage in abstract thought (traits that animals likely lack) are what distinguish us from the animal and plant kingdoms."I would just like to note that simply being distinguished between does not make one completely valueless, as per my argument.Seeing as I acknowledge that morals are subjective, I also acknowledge that not everyone may agree with me. But I would hope that voters note that as per how we view morals in real life, one can reasonably cast a vote for my moral system if they find it sensible, even if they acknowledge it is subjective.FOOD AND DISEASESMy opponent points out that there could be small exceptions made to a total meat eating ban without majorly affecting the ability to gather more food. This is true, so I drop this point. I would like to note that exceptions do not override my morality point, unless my opponent wants to dream up some random event that just might occur in order to make him technically right. I would hope voters acknowledge that random, dire, rare events (i.e. I'm trapped in a room with my cat and I'm starving) are small in the grand scheme of things, and small in terms of this debate. I realize that I have the burden of proof, but that burden can't rest so heavily upon me that there can be virtually no debate.Next my opponent argues that certain health benefits are needed through a modest consumption of meat. However, there is no need to end lives to satisfy our nutritional wants when you can get the nutrition that is available in meat from supplements. As far as my research has shown me[1][2][3], and as far as logic would suggest, there is nothing that is in meat that cannot be got in a supplement, and given that there are meat-tasting substitutes, and eating meat ends lives that do have some worth, there really is no reason to eat it.Sources:[1] http://authoritynutrition.com...[2] http://www.swansonvitamins.com...[3] http://www.walgreens.com...