Veganism is a morally superior choice than being a non vegetarian.

The first argument was clearly stating that eating meat was wrong because a) it supported the meat industry, and b) it led to the death of animals. I pointed out that the consumption of meat does not have to support the meat industry. Therefore, the only argument provided as for why eating meat is wrong is that it leads to the death of animals. I've explained why the act of killing in itself is not inherently wrong. The reason why one kills is what decides whether killing is right or wrong in that circumstance. Killing for personal gain is wrong most of the time. If what you are personally gaining is the ability to survive longer, then killing is acceptable. If it's money or something else of material value, killing is unacceptable. Humans are an omnivorous species. We are designed to eat meat. To have a proper diet, one must eat meat. Therefore, eating meat is necessary for survival on a natural and proper diet. Therefore, killing for the purpose of eating meat to survive is not wrong. A person can't be faulted for living how they're meant to live. Unless I'm misunderstanding the argument, I never denied that people are responsible for killing animals to eat. In fact, I'd much rather do the killing myself. That way I know how it was cleaned, that the animal was killed as humanely as possible in the situation, and where the meat has been since the death of the animal. Plus, fresh meat is better. If a person raises the animals humanely, then there is no reason to fault them for providing others with the opportunity to eat a natural diet. So it is morally wrong to be capable of providing for yourself and your family? Even more so than by buying meat that was likely raised in a factory farm? If killing is always wrong, then Adolf Hitler should have lived much longer. Saddam Hussein should have lived longer. Bin Laden should have lived longer. A world were killing is wrong period is a world that allows only warlords and dictators for they won't care what's right and wrong. They just want power. So, unless the vast majority of the world is warlords and dictators, killing is acceptable in certain circumstances. If it's socially acceptable, then society, or at least a large percent of it, has deemed the act morally correct. The argument being asserted is that anyone, no matter how horrible, should be permitted to live because killing them is wrong. Even if they directly killed 10,000 people, killing them is wrong and morally unacceptable. My opponent has drawn the conclusion that the will to live is not moral. Even though every animal has but two goals ingrained in it, those being to survive and to procreate, the will to survive is morally wrong. My opponent is saying that every single creature that was put on this planet is going to burn in Hell because they want to survive. Morals are something defined by the upbringing of a person. If the upbringing of an entire society has allowed it to reach the conclusion that killing in self defense is acceptable, then killing in self defense is also moral. Morals are not set in stone. They can change. It was once morally correct to beat your wife and treat her as property. It was once morally correct to own slaves. It is no longer morally correct to do any of those things. It always has been, and, God willing, always will be morally correct to do everything possible to survive and procreate. Including the consumption of other animals. We were designed to eat meat. Refusing to do so is unnatural. This is not meant to insult to those that don't eat meat. It is the truth. People don't eat meat because it tastes good. They make it taste good, and develop a taste for it, because it is what they are meant to eat. It is immoral to condemn someone for eating what they were designed to eat. The fact that my opponent claims to reject religion for the founding of morals is somewhat of a thorn. However, most people on the planet are some religion. Regardless, my opponent claims to derive morals from logic. That is a perfectly acceptable source because logically, we should eat meat. We were designed to eat meat, our natural diet includes meat, and we are healthiest when we consume some meat. Our diet is not meant to center around meat, but it is most certainly meant to include it. Based on all the research I've done, Hindus can eat meat. They just eat it rarely. People should eat meat rarely. While they shouldn't cut it out, it also shouldn't form the bulk of their diet. They recommend not eating meat. They don't forbid it. They still allow it. Vegetarianism does not forbid meat. I'm not certain of the specifics, but fish, eggs, and various other meat products are allowed based on what I've learned from vegetarian friends. To refrain from taking life is not the same as to refrain from eating. If you watch an eagle pluck a fish from the river, then you can scare the eagle off and eat the fish. You did not take the life. Likewise, if you purchase meat, you have not taken a life. I'm not sure if these are from the books you're talking about, but I have found a few things. “The worshippers dress for me fifteen (and) twenty bulls : I eat them and (become) fat, they fill both sides of my belly ;Indra is above all (the world).” Rig Veda 10.86.14 [1] “What food I eat of varied form and nature, food whether horse, sheep, goat, or bullock…” Atharva Veda 6.71.7 [1] Okay. Assuming the person is just as responsible for the animal's death as the killer, they still are not morally wrong for eating a natural diet. A diet of human flesh, while revolting to us, was deemed morally acceptable by the society described. That society, as a whole, agreed to eat human flesh. The upbringing of those people allowed them to reach this conclusion. Since morals are largely determined by upbringing, the consumption of human flesh in the described society is morally correct. Which system is better than freedom? None. The animals that I get hunting and fishing are born and raised free. Their life is taken to provide a proper diet to another animal. That is the best system. That system can't support 7 billion people, however, because we are overpopulated. Therefore, the next best thing is pasture raised livestock. One does not want freedom if one has never known freedom. A cow born into a factory farm never knows anything but that lifestyle. It can't want something it doesn't know exists. That's like saying Napoleon Bonaparte wanted hover cars with lasers. Neither of those things were even conceived of in his time. Humans are a different case. We have evolved a larger mental capacity, and have the time to contemplate different things. A cow has neither the mental capacity nor the desire to contemplate freedom. It wants to build as much energy with as little effort incase food gets scarce. The way to truly settle the jail example would be to have a baby born in jail. Raise them in that jail and allow them no exposure to anther lifestyle. No talk of it or anything. See if that person desires freedom come 20. So reform it, don't abolish it. What makes someone happy, however, is determined by that person or animal. The resolved is vegan-ism is morally superior. Equal is not morally superior. Yes, an action was taken. Numerous were. One of those was to produce at least one new pesticide. The only reason action was taken is because birds of prey were harmed. It becomes immoral because, at the time action's taken, people have decided that it is immoral to drive a species to extinction. Morals are subjective and thus subject to change. Then a true vegan would find it very hard to survive. The production of all crops involve the killing of animals even if just insects. To grow crops without pesticides would drive the prices through the roof. Most people don't deny the fact that animals are killed. The circumstances we live in have led to the decision that meat consumption is morally acceptable. [1] http://truthabouthinduism.wordpress.com...