To be suggested by the contender

"But more importantly, I'd like to point out that my opponent has not specifically indetified with their modified diet is superior to vegetarianism. Though they provided information about it, they did not prove it to be the better of the too. Also, need I remind you that all of my opponent's arguments are based off of their personal biomedical experience, but not a single legitimate source." What my argument is based on has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of my arguments. I am arguing that my modified diet is superior because it offers more variety with none of the harmful effects. You have not proven in any way, shape, or form that meat in and of itself is harmful, only that EXCESSSIVE meat is connected with poor health. "My opponent also said that I attacked chicken, but that this did not relate to the modified diet. Indeed, my evidence does relate to the modified diet as it shows the health risks of chicken consumption." Yes, the current habits of the average American vary from those of someone practicing the modified diet; however, the diet does indeed propose consuming chicken, a generally lean meat, which does have the aforementioned risks. These statistics are not deceptions, they're facts, with sources that my opponent lacks." This is more deception on my opponent's behalf. The statistics my opponent cited from the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health specifically attacks chicken consumption of the AVERAGE American family. Modified diet would include levels of chicken FAR, below average. "If my opponent will call for me to provide evidence, which I have done in every argument, I would appreciate the same from them." My evidence is merely logical reasoning. My opponent proposes that we cut all meat while I say that keeping some meat, as per our natural diet, is better in that we have more variety. If my opponent is suggesting an extreme like that, it's only reasonable to expect an unarguable piece of evidence showing that all meat, in any quantity, is bad for the body. My opponent has FAILED to do so. So why accept my opponent's pure vegetarian diet over a modified diet that includes meat but in low enough quantities to aboid potential problems? "The information I provided showed why we should non-lean meat; however, my opponent says that this is irrelevant because it does not pertain to the boundaries of the modified diet. If I understand correctly, the modified diet proposes the consumption of lean-meat, my information shows why it should not be consumed. Not only does this directly counter the modified diet, it is entirely relevant. Please refer to previous arguments for the specific information." I repeat, my opponent's statistics were zeroing in on the AVERAGE american family's consumption of lean meat. My modified diet would not contain anywhere NEAR those high amounts. I have said time and time again, the diet I propose is essentially vegetarian, with the inclusion of a little bit of lean meat and fish to provide essential proteins and amino acids in the diet. "It would not decrease the amount of meat processing factories, as these factories would simply begin to process a different kind of meat. These factories would still be in business and would still emit pollutants and toxins." Less meat demanded = less meat factories to produce pollutants and toxins. It's that simple. My opponent just has difficulty grasping that concept. "Also, my opponent stated that their diet would not increase consumption of fish. However, people would undoubtedly eat an increased amount of fish as a whole because those who at little fish would increase their intake to replace the other meat they were not eating and those who ate no fish at all would also begin to take the place of their former dietary habits." Incorrect again. My modified diet would generally decrease intake of ALL meat, even though fish would make up a big portion of the meat that a person consumes, the proposed diet would be so high in vegetables, fruits, and grains that it would still shrink the fishing industry. "My opponent has not provided any hard facts as to why the modified diet is significantly more beneficial than pure vegetarianism. They have simply repeated the fact that the modified diet includes only a little bit of meat. However, I have proven, through facts and statistics, that any amount of meat is not as healthy as a purely vegetarian diet. A vegetarian diet reduces the risks of cancers, heart disease, and countless other ailments. My opponent's proposed diet continues to subject the consumer to the risks of meat." Incorrect, my opponent has provided no statistics stating that. Examining each and every single one of the citations my opponent has made, they ALL pinpoint against HIGH QUANTITY of meat, not that meat is inherently dangerous. Deliberate misinterpretation on my opponent's part should not be considered adequate proof. My opponent's stance is essentially that I cited no statistics, therefore, I am wrong. While I have logical reasoning to back up my argument, my opponent has none. My opponent's arguments rest solely on those statistics and I have proven them to be inappropriate against my case. Despite my opponent's attempts to mislead and deliberately misinterpret the statistics, I have shown that there is no reason to cut out ALL meat from our diet, just exercise control.