Everyone who has the ability to adopt a vegan diet should do so.

Final Rebuttals1. Ethical IssuesPro contends that my 40% number is misleading. He doesn't actually explain why it's misleading and instead goes on to argue that factory farms (FF) exist, therefore FFs are the only way to produce enough meat. I already debunked this argument last round by pointing out that the jump in FFs was not representative of the increase in population suggesting that the 40% number has been artificially inflated and indeed that turned out to be the case as I showed FF owners lobby the state for barriers to entry against the conventional farmers (CF) and also push for subsidies for their own farms. I also pointed out that only 6% of land in the U.S. is developed in any way -- a point which my opponent has ignored here. It's clear that there's more than enough room for these farms and given that the majority of meat comes from CFs anyway - despite the inflated FF numbers - it's obvious that CFing can bear the load the demand.Pro points out that 99% of fish we consume comes from FF. While this is true it's also true that it takes 4.5 kg of ocean-caught fish to produce 1 kg of fishmeal that is fed to a fish on a fish farm [1]. We're already catching enough fish to not need factory farms. Once again the prominence of FFing is clearly due to corporations working in collusion with the government to maximize profits, not due to necessity. FFs are unnecessary and so Pro's argument falls apart.Pro contends that my pointing out that "the immorality of killing animals is just his opinion" is part of his resolution and therefore justified. This is not the case. His resolution is that we should adopt a vegan diet. It says nothing of his justifications. What this means is that he is backing his opinion (we should be vegan) with another opinion (killing animals for meat is bad). This is not a solid basis for an argument as I have shown in round 3 by establishing that subjective morality is relative and a utilitarian perspective deems livestock cultivation as moral.Pro points out that everything said thus far is opinion. This is not true. My only opinion is that we should not be vegans. Everything else has been factual justification. I have not claimed that eating meat is moral (my utilitarian argument was just to prove that it could be done and therefore arguments that it is immoral are just opinion). I have not backed my opinions with more opinions. Pro contends that these animals could survive on there own and this dismisses the utilitarian argument. They wouldn't have the population that they have now due to lack of protection as they would be hunted by predators. This argument alone validates the utilitarian perspective, but consider also that these animals never really exited in the wild. All of them have been domesticated from wild animals in fairly recent times and would therefore have a pretty good chance of winding up extinct due to the weakness and placidity bread into them [2].Pro contends that I failed to refute his assertion that exploiting weaker animals is immoral. I didn't fail to do so, I chose not to because I don't need to debunk mere assertions and opinions, nor do I have the character space to waste fighting opinion with opinion. 2. EnvironmentPro argues that cow methane is the third leading cause of global warming. Global warming is an enormous area of contention by itself. There's no solid proof that man's actions are actually the cause of the Earth warming and since there are no more rounds for Pro to make the case for global warming these arguments are moot. Even if we ignore this, all this argument justified is decreasing cattle cultivation in favour of poultry or other animals with a lighter environmental footprint. It's simply not enough to argue for veganism.Pro claims that my assertion that plant protein is incomplete is not true. THIS statement is the untrue one. Just because you can mix incomplete protein to make a pseudo-complete protein does not make the original protein complete. Animal proteins are better than plant proteins [3]. This is incontestable.Pro contends that over consumption of protein is relevant because I brought up how a vegan diet lacks protein. This doesn't follow. The choice isn't between over consumption and under consumption. Moderate consumption is possible, so you don't have to go over-board nor do you have to refrain from eating meat all together.3. HealthCancer Pro did provide this source last round. I apologize, however Pro didn't source it as per the DDO norm so you can understand why I missed it. Now, consider the following:"Today's findings were based on a study of 61,566 people who scientists followed over 12 years. During this time, it was found that 6.8% of meat eaters (2,204 of 32,403), 4.0% of vegetarians (829 of 20,601) and 3.7% of people who ate fish but no meat (317 of 8,562) were diagnosed with cancer." [4]Notice how fish eater actually have a lower rate of cancer than vegans. One more;"They found that 180 meat eaters developed blood cancers, while 49 vegetarians developed the diseases and 28 fish eaters." [4]Clearly this doesn't justify veganism as fish-eaters actually have lower rates of cancer than vegans. TuberculosisVitamin D deficiencies are common in vegans, it is absolutely relevant [5]. Once again Pro doesn't say what this "easy" solution is. The reason why he doesn't say it is this; the only place to get vitamin D from is from Fish, liver, and egg yolk [6]. Other than that it can only be taken by drinking a fortified beverage like milk (which they can't drink anyway), but that vitamin D used to fortify the milk comes from one of these three sources, so Pro's assertion falls flat on its face here 2 fold over.Soy and CancerI'm not sure what Pro is looking for here. I can't link him every source on the Internet that suggests soy may be carcinogenic so I use samples such as one esteemed cancer clinic rejecting soy products and once website whose entire purpose is about sharing information on cancer preventing tips. If the voters wish to see just how mainstream this is, all they need to do is Google "soy and cancer" and see for themselves what the world is saying about it. Once again soy is a commonly suspected carcinogen. Even the Dr. Oz show has discussed this and advocates avoiding several soy products and limiting consumption [8].B-12These beverages are only fortified with active b-12 because said b-12 is extracted from animal products, be it meat or stool. Granted, it's not the animal that produces the vitamin, its the bacteria inside the animal, but then if the only place to get this bacteria is from animals you haven't actually solved the problem at all now have you?Pro asserts that stool being the only other source of B-12 is a lie. He doesn't develop this idea further nor does he cite a source so... I guess we're supposed to take his word on it. Well, we don't have to. Even Veganhealth.org recognizes this and offers little (read nothing) in the way of alternatives [7].ConclusionEvery single point of contention favours a balanced diet rather than a vegan diet. Even the strongest of Pro's arguments, meat and cancer, fails when you look at the whole picture and include fish-eaters. FF have been shown to be unnecessary, but even if we were to grant this to Pro it's still not a strong enough argument a so many vital nutrients come either exclusively from meat or is extracted from animal products and put into non-meat products (at a high cost mind you) which defeats the point all together. I'm out of characters so I'll pose the following question to the voters; Has Pro's arguments convinced you to be a vegan? If not, this is an easy vote for you.1. http://goo.gl...2. http://goo.gl...3. http://goo.gl...4. http://goo.gl...5. http://goo.gl...6. http://goo.gl...7. http://goo.gl...8. http://goo.gl...