Everyone who has the ability to adopt a vegan diet should do so.

Also, I must say I'm impressed to see that Pro is sticking to his guns by continuing to argue his Factory-farm angle rather than abandoning it, however this will prove to be his downfall. Rebuttal's1. Ethical Issues Pro makes the claim that arguments against factory farms are arguments against meat eating because factory farming is the only reasonable way to get the required amount of meat/eggs/dairy out to the public. All of Pro's ethical arguments from round 2 are dependent on this fact and if it is shown that factory farms are not the only way to accomplish this task, then veganism will not be the only alternative thereby defeating pro's argument. As it happens, I can do just that. Pro has asserted that most of the consumed meat and dairy comes from factory farms. This is incorrect. as of 2005, 40% of meat comes from factory farms and a mere 15 years earlier it was only 30% [1] (I can't find statistics for dairy, but it's likely very similar to meat). First of all, it is already clear that a 100% takeover from conventional farms is possible as conventional farms only have to accommodate a 2/3 expansion in a country where only 6% of the land is even developed in any way [3]. There's more than enough room for these farms even assuming that this 40% number isn't artificially inflated -- which it is. This brings me to my "second of all". The population in America didn't grow much from 1990 to 2005 (248,709,873 - 299,398,484, [2]) so it's clear that this jump from 30% to 40% did not occur from necessity, but from these factory farm owners' desire to own a greater share of the means of meat production. As it turns out, these companies lobby the government to enact barriers to entry against conventional farmers as well as push for special subsidies to increase the profitability of factory farming [4]. Basically, what this all means is that even with the government holding back conventional farmers and financially backing factory farmers, factory farms still don't produce the majority of meat, nor are they required to as the vast majority of land in America alone is undeveloped. Given this, the absolute abolition of meat eating is not the only option and therefore Pro's argument here is weightless. Granted, this expansions of conventional farms can't last forever, but it doesn't have to. Science is developing ways of growing meat without having to raise livestock [5]. It will be several decades before this is an economical method of producing meat, but we easily have the resources to hold off until then. Pro then contends that breeding livestock for the sake of consuming its meat is immoral in and of itself. This is merely his opinion. It's just as valid to say that livestock cultivation is moral because it increases the population of these animals and ensures their survival in a symbiotic manner with humans. It's all relative, and you can't root your argument in something so subject to opinion. One final thing, grass fed cows from conventional farms produce more nutritious meat that grain fed cows from factory farms, meaning less meat will be needed [7].1. EnvironmentPro contends that many of the issues he brought up are not inherent to factory farming. This is true to an extent, but only an infinitesimal extent compared to the scale of these problems when it comes to factory farming, which as of now is not the only possible method of meat production. Pro talks about the amount of water needed to grow animals. While it's true that it takes 3 times as much water to make the meat for a hamburger than it does to make a pound of corn, what most vegans avoid mentioning is that it takes 2.5x as much water to make that corn than to make 1 lb of eggs and 5x as much water to make that corn that it does to make 1lb of chicken meat [6]. Keep in mind how much more nutrients are found in meat than in plants and it's clear that meat is a worth while investment. Animal waste is also a non-issue for conventional farms due to a technique known as "rotational grazing". With this technique, the soil absorbs the nutrients from the animals manure thereby allowing the grass, among other crops, to grow without the aid of synthetic fertilizers [8]. This process assists both meat and plant production and there is no superior method. Pro contends that we are eating too much protein. This may or may not be the case, but it's irrelevant. Eating meat in moderation solves this problem. Complete avoidance is not needed. Pro contends that Soy, nuts, etc give plenty of protein. This is true (though not when compared to meat), but it is incomplete protein and is therefore inferior to animal protein. 3. Health Pro takes issue with my arguments. I'm low on characters so this will be quick and sweet. Cancer: Pro contends that more recent evidence trumps mine. It is therefore his burden to provide said evidence and not merely assert its existence. Tuberculosis: Veganism is a plant based diet, so how is this issue not inherent to veganism? Pro also claims this problem is easily treated but doesn't mention how. Salmonella: Pro's source states that in 2008 alone 1,200 people were hospitalized because of food borne outbreaks. Roughly 45% (540 people) of this would be from beef, fish and poultry. Alfalfa has already proven itself to be a top contender in food borne illness distribution time and time again like in Sakai city 1996 where over 5000 Japanese students suffered from an E. coli outbreak [9]. While poultry is the number one cause of these illnesses without a doubt, leafy greens are actually in second place, not beef and fish. In fact fish actually comes in behind fruits, nuts, and vines (tomatoes/cucumbers) [10]. Soy and Cancer: My point here was that if a top cancer research clinic suspects soy of being a carcinogen, there's reasonable doubt that soy is a healthy alternative to meat. It's not as though this idea of soy and cancer is only in the head of these select doctors. Even breastcancerdefence. com has a page giving information on how much soy a woman can safely consume without risking developing breast cancer [11]. The controversy around soy's potential cancer causing agents are mainstream knowledge at this point. B-12: If pro cared to read my source, he would see that the b-12 that comes from plants is a non-active form of the vitamin, making it useless. The only other place to get the active form of vitamin b-12 is in animal stool, which can be extracted and put into pill form, but then this would be an animal product and is therefore against vegan ideals as it requires livestock cultivation, expect instead of for their meat we cultivate them for their stool. Even still, this is an expensive process as only about 5% of vitamin b-12 extracted from stool is the active kind [12]. I'm almost out of room, so I'll have to refute the last couple of pro's points next round. Conclusion Pro's argument hinged upon factory farming being the only way to produce meat on the scale needed. I've shown this to not be the case, so the bulk of pro's arguments are rendered moot. What's left is easily refuted with basic statistics on the convenience and necessity of meat.1. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. . http://www.infoplease.com... 3. . http://www.westernwatersheds.org... 4. . http://www.sustainabletable.org... 5. [Video] . http://www.youtube.com... 6. . http://ga.water.usgs.gov... 7. . http://www.marksdailyapple.com... 8. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 9. . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 10. . http://www.cdc.gov... 11. . http://www.breastcancerdefense.com... 12. . http://www.second-opinions.co.uk...