Vegans practicing on moral principle ought to become Freegan instead

Right out of the batting box Con breaks two of the biggest rules in the debate. His first contention is an abusive framework argument which uses debate jargon and hinges on semantic abuse to ignore all of my first round arguments. Not cool man, you know better than that. The impact to this kind of argument is two-fold; first, Con must be docked conduct for breaking not one, but two rules of the round. A discussion of framework should not happen in a public debate. our focus should be on the clash relevant to the resolution. Second; this framework argument needs to be wholly discarded. If I am forced to discuss framework, then the entire debate may boil down to the relevancy and impacts of the framework instead of on-case clash. I have confidence that the voters are smart enough to be able to weigh our arguments without having to be told how to vote or view the resolution. Aside from all that, the framework argument is bad anyway. It assumes that Con maintains presumption when the BOP is balanced. and that I don't incorporate a standard of vegan morality into my first round. Next Con claims that I provide no moral justification for the superiority of Freeganism. This is wholly untrue. Perhaps the biggest tenet of my first round is reducing waste. The argument is that a Vegan diet requires a large amount of resources to maintain which contributes to a huge volume of waste produced by Americans every year. Further I argue that no Vegan values are violated through a Freegan diet as they don't create any kind of demand through their consumption. So if a Freegan did happen to eat a meat product it is moral because they keep the animal from having had diet for no reason while also reducing the waste from the meat having been thrown away. meanwhile they create no demand for the animal and produce no further suffering. Con never even touches my arguments because he thought his abusive framework would have been able to circumvent that clash, but as I've already shown that argument is an illegal one and even then it doesn't prove that I'm not considering a Vegan morality. Finally Con seems to believe that a Vegan diet is morally superior to a Freegan one in that it reduces the suffering of animals. I wrote in the prior round about the futility of this kind of thinking, in that it doesn't actually reduce any kind of suffering. Even considering the consumption habits of existing vegans, there is still a market demand for meat. And while it's true that not contributing to this market demand doesn't make Vegans responsible for the suffering, it also doesn't mean that animals aren't suffering already. Freeganism doesn't contribute to market demand at all, so they're on the same moral level here. Con speaks of Singer's preference utilitarian argument, but this is flawed contrasting Veganism against Freeganism since a Freegan diet doesn't contribute to the market demand of meat. I said this in my prior round but con has already told us he ignored those arguments, so I'll write it here again; not eating an animal that has already been slaughtered won't bring it back to life. So claiming a moral high ground here is silly since it doesn't reduce suffering. If a Freegan were paying for the meat, thus creating a market demand to kill more animals, con's argument would make sense. But since Freegans only eat food that's already been tossed out, there is no market demand created thus Freegans don't increase suffering. As for the health argument, it's irrelevant. That's a health issue, not a moral one. In conclusion, Con's first argument is abusive, unwarranted and wrong, Con's second argument ignores the market demand argument which incorporates the vegan moral principle of reducing suffering, and Con's Third argument doesn't do anything to show a superiority of Veganism over Freeganism. Meanwhile, the pro argument of reducing waste is flat out ignored (not cool) and the market demand argument is also ignored.