Veganism and Animal Rights

Thanks for that round.To start off, I'm going to say I'll actually concede pigs. Primarily because I'm too lazy to research their neuropsychology, and apparently there was some kind of study that paired pigs at the emotional and intellectual level of humans (even though pro's source said that pigs are not as intelligent as monkeys). However, conceding pigs doesn't mean coceding the debate.Remember that my opponent must prove veganism. In order for my opponent to prove veganism, I have to lose every animal that I present (because it would be ridiculous to expect my opponent to prove why humans shouldn't eat every possible animal from dogs down to worms).I'm going to go back over some of the same arguments addressed in the last round and remind the voters of some of the other issues. I'll go in order of subject, not necessarily point in the debate, so just keep that in mind while comparing the two arguments.Logical Fallacies:We are experiencing anthropomorphism with little evidence. For example, my opponent asserts that cows feel the exact same things humans do without any actual evidence of that. I'll address the "best friends" article later (my opponent's first source), but keep in mind that just because my opponent states it, does not make it true. I have already provided evidence that a cow cannot possibly feel what a human does based on its actual brain.My opponent is still appealing to emotions. For example, my opponent asserts and emotional non sequitur fallacy: that if you eat meat then you do not love animals. First of all, the first part of the sentence and the second part of the sentence do not logically follow. For example, I can possibly have less emotional attachment to a house fly (which is an animal by definition) and my dog. To assert it's an all or nothing game is logically fallacious.The second problem is that my love for an animal doesn't determine which side is right. Remember the outcome bias logical fallacy? If I spend time with a cow, I will get attached to it. Most people would. My attachment to that cow does not meant that the cow reciprocates or that the cow has become any more of a personal creature than its brain allows it to be.This assertion bears no grounding in this argument.Now to my next point:My analysis on animal nature is essentially dropped:a. CowsIn the last round, I presented an analysis of a cow's brain and what that brain is capable of. My opponent may have complimented it in word but not in action. After proving that a cow has no ability to think of anything emotionally, my opponent posts three sentences and an article that doesn't site any scientific evidence. The article can be interpreted the way that the people emotionally attached to the cow would like you to interpret it, or you could interpret it the way someone who studies animals for a living would interpret it.Cows seem to develop bonds with other cows. Survival is the obvious reason for this. All animals seek to survive, and the way they do that often includes bonding with other animals. For example, the video I posted in my last round displayed seemingly emotional behavior, but the zoologist on-site concluded it was only in the interest of the continuation of species. With cows, the reason for bonding with other cows is to form a pack that they identify as safe. Having a safe-pack is immensely important for survival, and a cow knows that by instinct. Do not, however, mistake instinct for emotions or sentience.Until my opponent proves with scientific evidence that cows are sentient, cows should be viewed as non-sentient beings, which means they do not inheret the rights of a sentient being.b. DeerThis is something my opponent never addressed. In the last round I analyzed how a deer population can actually be protected by a natural predator/prey relationship between the humans and the deer. My opponent has not attacked this. This argument should be viewed as conceded (until my opponent attacks it), which means veganism cannot be upheld.Human Diet:"As much as I agree with veganism, distorting facts to make a point is not the way to go. In fact, it’s counterproductive," [1].This is a quote from a vegan biologist. He that article I posted is his debunking of the myth that humans are herbivores. While humans have some qualities that seem herbivorous, such a view has to ignore other elements of human taxonomy and the agreement of biologists as a whole. Of course a human has a digestive system that can tackle the nutrition that comes from plants. Omnivores do have that digestive system.a. Fermenting vat:We lack a fermenting vat [2]. When you hear cows have four stomachs, it's because they have four sections of a stomach that are for extracting the most nutrition from a plant as possible. Rabbits have a unique one along their intestine, whereas after digesting something, the have a cecum that will pull back any feces that still has nutrition and ferment it until the nutrition has been completely abosrbed.This is an essential part of an herbivore, because like I said, getting all of your body's nutrition from vegetation is extremely difficult. In fact, rabbits excrete these fermented poops, and they will consume them again. If the rabbit does not eat them, the rabbit will suffer from malnutrition [3]. Humans can't do this, because our body doesn't ferment digested product like an herbivore's does.b. Intestines:"Intestinal absorption is a surface area, not linear problem." In other words, my opponent has not proved anything by giving the length of the intestine. The main difference among the different kinds of eaters is, in fact, the number of "crypts and cell types" [2]. In other words, my opponent's point about intestines is not correct.c. Chewing"This behavior is clearly related to what type of food you are actually eating and not a fixed behavior that is a clear adaptation to specialization of food. Some foods needs to be chewed more to swallow" [1].In other words, the ability to move a jaw side to side has nothing to do with specialization of food sources. In fact, snakes (carnivores) move their jaw side to side [4] in order to chew as much as they could bite. The movement of the jaw is not proof of a herbivorous creature.d. ClawsThe existance of claws is also irrelevant. Not all animals that are carnivorous have claws. Early on, humans adapted other ways of getting meat, like how an otter adapted to getting meat by banging a clam on a rock as opposed to tearing it apart with its claws. Because one of those two ways will actually work, for their needs. In order for a man to get enough meat for his family, he cannot attack an animal small enough to claw to death. It's just the way our bodies came to be.e. BloodThis is a result of sociology not biology. We have grown up in a society where we don't do the killing or the hunting (unless you grew up in the south). In fact, most hunters have absolutely no problem with skinning and gutting an animal that they killed for food. Does this prove my opponent wrong? Probably, but the point is that this is a result of culture, not primal instinct.f. Raw meatFor the past few thousand years humans have been intelligent enough to be able to cook meat. Given Darwinian evolution, it makes sense that our bodies would've adapted to this lifestyle as it became widespread in the ancient world. Again, this is not proof of an herbivorous lifestyle.g. SweatThe existence of sweat doesn't prove our eating style. And in fact, my opponent is comparing herbivores to carnivores when in fact the comparison should be between herbivores and omnivores. Because no one here is arguing that humans are carnivores.I think that's all I really need to say on the matter. Humans are omnivores. No biologist is in disagreement with that.Keep in mind that I am using a vegan and a non-profit vegetarian organization as my proof. I'm not using some corporate website of the meat foundation or something. My sources on human diet are completely unbiased. These are people who realize the complexity of a vegan or vegetarian lifestyle, and they have a personal conviction to that lifestyle.The Morality:My opponent is pushing that the animals in question are sentient. Let's define sentience real quick: "Capable of feeling things through physical senses" [6].So I take back in the last round where I said animals are not sentient. Apparently, all of them are. But so is a nematode [7]. In other words, sentience in this case is meaningless. What really matters is whether or not an animal is a person. Does a cow have actual unique emotional traits and a complex thought process to relate memories and physical experiences to emotion? No. Does a cow contemplate its own existence? Evidence would say they do not.Most animals are in no way persons. A cow has no capability of mind to do or process something emotionally. Different "personalities" may be conditioned by different instincts, but those do not go to emotions. They go to a conditioned response based on what their brain has learned through physical experiences. They are moderately intelligent in this way, but they are not people because of it. The ability to learn is fairly nonunique in animals, even the ones that are undisputably not people.Again, I ask you vote in my favor do to the underwhelming proof from my opponent and the overwhelming proof that the animals in question so far are not people.Sources:[1] https://veganbiologist.com...[2] https://www.vrg.org...[3] http://www.bio.miami.edu...[4] Harley, J.P., & Miller, S.A. "Zoology." 7th Edition. 2007. McGraw-Hill Companies. Page 334[5] https://en.wikipedia.org...[6] http://www.macmillandictionary.com...[7] http://www.sciencedirect.com...