Humans should be vegetarians.

The opponent made a variety of arguments:1. Meat eating/killing animals is immoral. 2. Meat eating/killing animals is evolutionary incorrect.3. Meat eating/killing animals is unhealthy. 4. Meat Production causes pollution.5. Meat Production causes deforestation/excessive land use. I'll be addressing each of these issues individually. Argumentation1. Meat eating/killing animals is immoral. All of my rebuttals will have a common theme, in that I'll be pointing out repeatedly that the opponent has not provided any evidence to back up his claims. For this argument in particular, the opponent failed to demonstrate why meat eating is immoral. If we are to assume that there is an objective morality, we would need to appeal to the existence of some god that sets the standard of moral correctness. If we are to further assume that some god exists, it would still not justify the claim that eating meat is immoral. The Bible [Gen. 9:3] states that "every living thing that moves shall be food for [man]. " In Islam, it is considered acceptable to eat many kinds of meat, with limited restrictions. [1] Many Buddhist texts reference even Buddha himself eating meat. [2] It is clear that, even within the framework of popular religions, eating meat is fine. If we are to assume there is no god, then it cannot be claimed that there is an objective morality, as there is nothing existent with the authority to claim that some action is absolutely correct or absolutely incorrect. As such, the claim cannot be made that eating meat is "immoral" since there is no authority that can justifiably make that judgement for everyone. 2. Meat Eating/Killing Animals is evolutionarily incorrect. Again, this claim is not substantiated with any evidence. The Vegetarian Resource Group (VRG), which is pro-vegetarianism, states that humans are naturally omnivores, meaning they eat both meat and plants. [3] This is indicated in archaelogical records which has documented human's meat and vegetable eating habits over time. (Think hunter-gatherers. ) Furtermore, we have specialized cells that break down meat. If we were evolutionarily incapable of eating meat, these would not exist. It is a well understood scientific fact that humans are omnivores. To claim otherwise requires a great deal of evidential support, since the notion flies in the face of known science. 3. Meat eating is unhealthy. Some meat, like high fat red meat, can have negative health consequences -- a direct result of the high fat content. However, lean red meat is considered healthy, as it provides more protein than fat. [4] Fish is very healthy, in moderation, as it provides access to Omega 3's that have wholistic health benefits. Besides the fact that the claim is patently false, it would be irrelevant if it were true. The Western ideal of "freedom" ought to be held in higher regard than "compulsive healthy eating. " The opponent's logic here could easily be extended to include banning ice cream, candy bars, cookies, most all bottled drinks, most all fast food and even sweet tea. (Gasp! ) This is, of course, a ridiculous notion to uphold. People should have the right to eat what they want when they want it, regardless of the health impacts. To deny this is to deny the most fundemental human right -- freedom. 4. Meat production causes pollution. This is sometimes true, but not always. More importantly, meat consumption does not inherently cause pollution. Allow me to elaborate. Many mass preparation facilities cause pollution because of the very fact that they are producing something on a large scale. Be this the production of meat or veggies, the pollution will still happen. Consider that a man can throw a net into the river, catch fish, eat them and not produce any amount of pollution. This shows that meat eating does not directly cause pollution, but rather the way in which we produce meat, which is subject to change as does technology. Finally, I could not find any reports specifically looking at meat eating/animal killing and pollution. Perhaps the opponent can provide this because, as it stands, this is an entirely unsubstantiated claim. 5. Meat production causes deforestation and excessive land use. Unsubstantiated. However, from a logical standpoint, this makes sense. Unfortunately, the alternative to meat eating, vegetarianism, does not solve this issue. Growing the amount of veggies and grains necessary to feed the population takes an enormous amount of land, since the growth needs to happen somewhere. So the "deforestation and excessive land" problem, if even significant, would not be solved by cutting out meat. And again, meat eating is not inherently tied to deforestation and land use. The fishing industry, for example, does not affect the trees and does not require the permanent usage of any significant amount of land. Chicken factories can fit inside a single large facility, not requiring the use of great amounts of land. Cattle need less land than a wheat field. It is clear that this issue, if it is an issue, is not solved by affirming the resolution. It is a simple fact that food requires space to be produced, regardless of its form. ConclusionThe opponent made many claims and failed to prove any of them. There was not even any supporting evidence presented. Despite this, I analyzed each point and demonstrated the flaws within them. It is clear that, at this point, it cannot be said that "humans should be vegetarians". Sources:1 - . http://www.quran-islam.org...(P1156).html 2 - . http://www.urbandharma.org...;3 - . https://www.vrg.org...;4 - . http://www.rd.com...;