Resolved: A vegan diet is superior to low carbohydrate diets.

As per the structure of the debate, it is not my obligation this round to refute my opponent's case. I will of course address his argument in the third round. I am clarifying this so that my opponent cannot accuse me of dropping his argument. I will now formally present my own case against the veganism. The Argument from Healthy Choices Clearly this argument needs justification from me as many people argue that vegan diets are the healthiest method on which one might conduct their life. You see the argument from a low carbohydrate diet is that we can use fat to fuel our body for nutrients. The problem is that many are using the Lipid hypothesis to justify their assertions for arguing that meat is unhealthy and that furthermore vegan diets(because plants contain no fat) are much healthier. Here is my argument in deductive form: P1) A low carbohydrate diet is more healthy than a vegan diet Subpoint A. A Vegan diet promotes many deficiencies Subpoint B. A Vegan diet causes negative effects Subpoint C. The lipid hypothesis is false. P2) We should do what is healthier for our body. C1) We should adopt a low carbohydrate diet. As you can see, the conclusion naturally flows from the premises. P1) A low carbohydrate diet is more healthy than a vegan diet Subpoint A. A vegan diet has been shown from many studies to promote low levels of many different nutrients. The most notable nutrients of these are vitamin B-12, omega 3 fatty acids, and iron. For B-12, studies has shown that serum levels are always low in vegans[1]. Furthermore, because of their B-12 deficiency they have low HDL(good cholesterol), elevated homocystetine and lipoprotein(a) levels[2]. Regarding omega fatty acids, studies have also shown that plasma EPA and DHA are lower in vegetarians and vegans regardless of duration of adherence to the diet[3]. Studies have also shown Omega 6:3 is higher in vegan children[4]. When we move onto iron I think you will find the results are quite similar, not only is the RDA for iron 1.8 times the levels for meat eaters(due to heme iron from meat being more bioavailable)[5][6], many vegan foods contain polyphenols and phytates that can decrease the absorption of nonheme iron(i. e. Spinach, lentils, wheat germ, etc)[7]. There is evidence for deficiencies in many more nutrients including: Vitamin A, Vitamin K2, Iodine, Coenzyme Q10, Taurine, Carntine, Vitamin D and Calcium. I can provide studies if needed for any of these nutrients at my opponent's request, but I think the audience get the main argument that Vegans suffer from many different deficiencies and low levels of nutrients vital to surviving. Subpoint B. A vegan diet not only promotes deficiencies it has negative physical effects on the body. I will be going over many aspects of negative factors on veganism including low testosterone, increased disease risk, and negative child development effects. The first point I would like to make is that vegetarians and vegans both suffer from lower levels of testosterone[8][9] and sperm count[10]. Not only that but there has been a case report that there is a loss of libido and erectile dysfunction on a soy-rich vegan-style diet[11]. When it comes to increased disease risks, you can look no further than veganism! Not only do vegan diets cause reduced gallbladder emptying [12], but they can lead to Alzheimer's disease[13], and cardiovascular mortality[14]. It also increases your chance for heart disease by decreasing HDL(cited above but I will provide another study)[15]. Child development has many studies on the negative effects of veganism, this includes B-12 deficiencies[16], lower birth weight and earlier labor[17], and tend not to grow normally[18]. Subpoint C. My last point is the lipid hypothesis is false. Technically, my opponent has burden to prove that lipid hypothesis is correct however because many accept the lipid hypothesis without question I will argue against it here. The lipid hypothesis is simply put is the theory that fat is what cause heart disease and cholesterol increases. It also states that cholesterol in of itself causes heart disease. However, this hypothesis is false in everyone of its links. For one, even very recently the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics have conceded that from the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee's Scientific Report, we can eat red meat as part of a healthy diet[19]. Furthermore, saturated fat(a constant in animal products) has been shown to have no correlation with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease or coronary heart disease[20][21]. P2) We should do what is healthier for our body. My second premise is that we should do what is healthier for our body. While I don't believe this premise will be contested, I will argue it anyway. I would like to remind the audience that the implied premise for this premise is within moral reason. Which means that ethical considerations still apply. However, we should note that we have an ethical responsibility for self-preservation. It would not be immoral, for example, to kill someone who broke into your home and was attempting to kill you. The point I am trying to make here is that ethics always must take practical concerns into account. We must remember that our own self-preservation is a very high moral ethic to abide by and must go above most other values. C1)We should adopt a low carbohydrate diet. If the premises are true then the conclusion naturally follows. The Argument for the Permissablity This argument revolves around what degree that animals have rights and what degree they are sentient. Now equality must exist in some respect as animals do have some level consciousness yet we know that this is degreed because we do not afford the same rights to some who kills a cockroach as to someone who kills dog. Likewise we do not afford similar punishments to someone who kills a dog to who kills a human. Here is my argument in deductive form. P1)If animals are not morally equivalent to humans, then it is okay to eat them. P2) Animals are not morally equivalent to humans. C1) It is okay to eat animals. As you can see, if the premises are true then the conclusion naturally follows. P1) If animals are not morally equivalent to humans, then it is okay to eat them. Now if we assume that animals are not morally equivalent to humans does that mean we have right to eat them? I would argue it is so. For example, we do not argue that lions ought to be converted to veganism. Neither do we say that a cat is committing a moral atrocity by killing the mice in our house. We know that it is in their nature, and even if they did have a moral obligation to not kill animals outside their species they don't have the capacity to comprehend said morals and cannot be seen as responsible for making that moral mistakes. We can further see this when we consider the argument above, because a low carbohydrate diet is healthier(physiologically) than a vegan diet, this implies there exists a need for animal products to satisfy the health requirements of human beings. If our body needs it, and animals are not equivalent to humans then it must be okay to eat them. P2) Animals are not morally equivalent to humans. Animals cannot participate in human culture, and they cannot live ethically by nature of their own capacity. Moral theory not only considers everyone's equality but it also considers practical concerns and because animals are not moral beings by nature, it would seem to be illogical to argue that animals can have the same rights and responsibilities as humans. No one would argue that animals have this capacity. I would like to point out that its the human's responsibility to prevent unnecessary suffering not the animals moral right not experience it. That's why we get up set when we see animal abuse, because we know its unneccesary not because the animals have had their rights violated. C1) It is okay to eat animals. I will pass the argument onto my opponent and I would like to thank him in advance for this debate! Sources: . http://tinyurl.com...