Pesci-Vegetarianism is beneficial

Once more, voters I urge you to put aside your bias, as hard as that may be, and enjoy the rebuttal that is about to be presented to you. It will be broken down into 4 different sections: • On Health • On Environmentalism • On Burden • and Conclusion ________________________________ On Health: My opponent states, "Yes an omnivore with no dietary restrictions can eat all of these, but it is through limiting meat that the benefit is received. " Therefore, she concedes to the fact that there isn't an advantageous unique benefit to being a pesci-vegetarian, thus, I win off this point because my opponent does not achieve her burden, which is to show that there infact IS a unique benefit. The only thing she lists as a unique benefit to being a pesci-vegetarian is that they limit their meat consumption, I, as an omnivore, have the freedom to choose whether or not I want to eat tons of meat of a limited amount, therefore, this point is moot in light of the fact that an omnivore can limit there meat consumption, just as much, or even less than, a pesci-vegetarian. Furthermore, I would argue the benefit my opponent is discussion, is whenever a pesci-vegetarian consumes a limited amount of meat, they are helping the environment, hence, I will assert this argument in the next section titled "On environmentalism", as that would be the most relevant category. Voters, I strongly urge you to disregard any arguments that my opponent has made about the benefits a pesci-vegetarian can acquire. Yes, a pesci-vegetarian may be able to achieve certain benefits, but, these benefits are not exclusive to pesci-vegetarians, as my opponent points out, an omnivore can achieve the same benefits, hence, this is not unique to pesci-vegetarians, thus, she is not achieving her burden which is justified through the definition of beneficial. ________________________________ On Environmentalism: My opponent states, "Very well, say global warming isn't happening. The methane and other harmful gases are polluting the environment and damaging our lungs and putting greenhouse gases into the air that also damage your skin and can possibly lower your life expectancy. " This is a huge assumption on my opponents behalf, simply because she does not give us any evidence for as to why this is true, insofar as this lacks professional evidence, you ought to dismiss this claim. For argument's sake, let's assume that my opponent is correct in her analysis, I would argue that we must remember that the negative impacts that exist within the status quo, in regards to pollution and breathing hazards have a highly minimal impact in our day-to-day lives. Unless you have asthma or are overwieght, ask yourself, how often do you have breathing difficulties? As with the majority of the population, you'd answer, "not frequently, or rarely", this is because despite pollution and despite many of these "harmful" gases that exist today, we are not suffering to the point in which we ought to leave billions of people jobless. Once again, my opponent is valuing mere pollution that comes from farms OVER that of the value of life for billions of workers internationally. Which should we prioritize? PRO would say that we should care more about minimizing pollution, despite whether or not people lose there jobs and trillions of dollars go down the drain. While CON would say, despite the minimal pollution gathered through farming, we ought to value the prosperity of our world economically, because the status quo cannot afford more poverty, in the most literal sense. ________ My opponent then argues that, like carriage makers to cars, meat farmers should learn how to adjust to change. I would argue that this is an improper comparison, this is because, unlike meat, carriages were typically for the middle class citizen, carriages were seen as a luxury, not a necessity, therefore the demand for them was significantly lower than that of present day meat. Meat has been consumed since the beginning of time, and my opponent believes that we can simply do away with eating meat and conform to what she considers a benefit to society. ________ My opponent clearly mishandles my argument regarding segregation and elitism, she actually creates a mockery out of said notion. What I mean by this elitism that my opponent makes is that, whenever someone claims what thy are is better than what everyone else is, thus we should try and be more like them, they are claiming a position of elitism, by definition. My opponent is essentially saying that pesci-vegetarians are healthier and care more for the environment, no, this does not mean WWIII, but, it does mean that my opponent is claiming an elitist position. _________ You ought to dismiss my opponent's point regarding the positive environmental impact, because the negative economical impact outweighs the positive. So, since the negatives outweigh the positives, this is in fact not a benefit, therefore this point is dismissed, leaving my opponent with no case, no justification, thus you ought to vote CON. ________________________________ On Burden: By the definition of "beneficial", my opponent must offer a substantial and unique benefit that you gain from pesci-vegetarianism. In that my opponent has yet to provide you with said benefit, you must default CON. ________________________________ Conclusion: My opponent has stated that there is a beneficial, meaning advantageous aspect to being a pesci-vegetarian, yet she has yet to fulfill that promise. She gives you two points to consider, one being the health benefits, and the other being environmental. I have properly dismissed both.