A Vegan lifestyle is better than a meat-eating one

Thank you Con for your opening statements.Introduction Firstly, I will begin by responding to my opponent's arguments for why a meat diet is better. Secondly, I will defend my original arguments for why veganism is better than a meat eating lifestyle. Nature Here Con argues that humans are meant to eat meat because we have molars and K-9 teeth. This is more of a statement of fact rather than an argument for why a meat lifestyle is better than a vegan one. I really don't even have to respond to it for that reason. However, I will do so anyways. Yes, humans can eat meat but that doesn't mean that we ought to. I could go next door and eat my neighbor's newborn. His baby is, after all, made of meat like animals. However, I think we would all agree that just because I CAN do that doesn't mean that I should. Food Chain Here Con argues that eating animals is morally permissible because animals in the wilderness eat other animals. This too, is not an argument for why a meat diet is better than a vegan one. However, I will respond to it anyway. Yes, animals in the wild eat other animals, but this is more of a statement of fact rather than an argument. It seems like you're saying that because animals do that, it must be morally permissible for humans to do so as well. This is seriously problematic, because if we start to derive our moral values from what other animals do, then many things can no longer be consider immoral. Rape, infanticide, aggressive fights, ect. are all things that occur in the animal kingdom. Do we really want to say that because other animals do these things that we ourselves should be allowed to do them as well? I think not. Nutrition Here Con argues that meat is superior to plants when it comes to getting protein. He didn't exactly explain how it's superior. So for now, I will dismiss his claim. Taste Here Con argues that meat is one of the tastiest parts of the meal. This, I think, is kind of subjective. There are many people who do not like the taste of meat, and who prefer other foods. Con mistakenly thinks that all vegans eat is vegetables. This is untrue, because pretty much every food can be made vegan. Even things like meat. Whole grains, beans, nuts, seeds, pasta, pizza, lentils, tofu, tempeh, seitan, ect. are just a few of the many foods out there for people abstaining from animal products. The Individual or Society?Con says that my arguments are simply stating that a vegan society is better, and that it is not addressing the individual person. And therefore my arguments are not even relevant to the debate. The individual and society distinction was not made clear in the rules of the debate. It was NOT, "A Vegan lifestyle is better than a meat-eating one for the individual," or "A Vegan lifestyle is better than a meat-eating one for society." The debate topic was simply, "A Vegan lifestyle is better than a meat-eating one." I think Con is trying to conveniently make this distinction in the middle of the debate to make it easier for himself. However, even if I were to grant this distinction, veganism can still be shown to be better. While it's true that one person switching to a vegan diet isn't going to stop the meat industry, it does save nearly 200 animals per year [1] from the miserable existence on a modern farm. As I pointed out earlier, according to a study in the UK, dropping animal products from your diet saves 50% more carbon emissions than driving a Prius. So even if we ignore the society part of it, and instead look at it from the individual's perspective, veganism is still better. Veganism is Kinder Towards Animals Here Con argues that the animals we raise on farms are meant to be food. This is again, more of a statement of fact rather than an argument. Of course those animals are there to be killed for our food. That's why we continue to breed them on a massive scale. However, what's the moral justification for us doing this to animals? I don't see it. This statement made by Con could have also been used by a white slave owner in the 18th century. To demonstrate this, let change the word animals with Africans, and the phrase "to be food" with "to pick cotton." Observe: "The Africans we have on plantations are meant to pick cotton, would you all rather go back to picking your own cotton?"I believe Alice Walker said it best with her quote:"The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for white, or women created for men." [2]Con says that it's more mean to not buy animal flesh at the store, because by doing that the animal has died for nothing. This line of reasoning is baffling. The animal whose flesh is being sold has already died for nothing, given that we don't even need to eat meat. By purchasing that flesh you are not doing the animals a favor. All you're doing is contributing to the continued existence, prosperity, and slaughter of more animals. Veganism is Better For The Environment I already explained how vegans individually do help the environment by saving more carbon emissions, and not producing huge amounts of greenhouse gas emissions like meat eaters. Conclusion Con has literally given no reasons to believe that an omnivore lifestyle is better than a vegan one. I, on the other hand, have given various reasons for thinking that a vegan lifestyle is best. Sources: http://www.peta.org...https://www.goodreads.com...