"Livestock" slaughter is acceptable

Firstly I'd just like to say an excellent response and I am also looking forward to this debate as it progresses.My main argument is that elimination of meat is not a preferred option to a reduction in meat consumption. A lot of my opponents arguments are on the scale of livestock farming, which is not the subject of the debate.In order to tidy up the structure of these arguments I will add a layer of overarching themes as introduced by my opponent.Theme 1 - Choice (T1)Point 1a - Peoples Choice (T1P1a)I believe that the fact that the majority of US citizens consume meat is highly relevant to this debate. The part of the initial statement "ought to continue" is subjective, which is why I asked for clarification and was given "the preferred of the two worlds". I would say that the preference of Americans is towards meat consumption. Animals voting is an extreme example and I believe should be dismissed on the feasibility of such a situation.Point 1b - Animals Choice (T1P1b)Animals do not have a choice just as prey does not have a choice when hunted, that cannot change, please provide some evidence of how this could be achieved. You are making the assumption that the animals will be suffering more through farming than they would otherwise. At the moment this is true but it is possible to give them a life that is better than that they would receive in the wild and there are already methods of killing them that are instantaneous and pain free. I argue that suffering of animals is not a part of this debate. The animals in question do have a right to have a decent life and I believe strongly that they should have this. The animals lives are in our hands and that is true for all animals across the globe whether for livestock or not. The reason we have that responsibility is due to our position in the food chain.Theme 2 - Health (T2)Point 2 - Evolution (T2P2)The reason I brought in Evolution is not based around choice, it is simply based around the structure of our bodies. We are built to have an omnivorous diet and my opponent has not refuted these claims. This simply underpins my future arguments with regards to nutrition, our bodies are not designed for a purely vegetarian diet, we do not have the correct digestive system to absorb all the nutrients we need from a vegetarian diet. That does not mean that with a controlled diet it is not possible, it just means that it is difficult.The subsection of insectivores is a part of the omnivores and therefore the point in our ancestry you are talking about is not far enough back to consider them vegetarians http://en.wikipedia.org... I am under the opinion that insect farming falls under livestock slaughter and therefore is a part of the practice in debate.Point 5 - Lack of nutrients (T2P5)The main point here is that we are talking about more than simply two different options for diet. There is a purely vegetarian diet, a mainly vegetarian diet, a mainly meat based diet and a purely meat based diet. I am arguing that the preferred of the 4 choices here is not a purely vegetarian diet but a primarily vegetarian diet. I do not argue that is it not possible to achieve the required nutrients from a vegetarian diet but that it is more difficult. You have not refuted these claims. We already do not eat healthily so I have little confidence in peoples ability to eat a vegetarian diet that would supply them with all the necessary nutrients.Point 6 - Alternatives (T3P6)I concede that this is not a valid argument for the continuation of meat consumption as this is based on how the products are processed not the products themselves. It also does not provide arguments for the exclusive consumption of non meat products.Point 8 - Disease (T3P8)Diseases are carried through all manner of materials and are largely down to cramped and confined conditions that the animals are kept in. With improvement of the conditions the animals were kept in the disease would reduce. http://digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu...Point 7 - Fat is healthy (T3P7)Like all nutrients Fats including saturated fats are required as a part of a balanced diet. The sources of the information you have linked are in regards to a disproportionate amount of saturated fats in our diets as opposed to a balanced diet containing saturated fats.Theme 3 - Environment (T3)Point 3 - Sustainability (T3P3)I provided two references to more sustainable farming. The latter of the two I believe to be the future of livestock farming, insects. They can be farmed very densely and the theoretical outputs from such methods far outstrip plant based farming. Sustainable methods for farming livestock have been around for as long as we have been consuming meat, it is only recently that we have started using unsustainable methods. http://www.sehn.org...Point 9 - Greenhouse Gases (T3P9)Greenhouse gas emissions would drop if the animals in question were to be fed on better diets. A reduction in greenhouse gases could also be achieved by a reduction in our meat consumption but we are not talking about reduction but elimination. As greenhouse gases cannot be eliminated but can be reduced without terminating livestock farming.Point 10 - Biodiversity (T3P10)Biodiversity is an issue but livestock farming is not the only cause of the issue. Any time we use land for something other than it was originally intended for we are affecting the biodiversity, this include plant farming. Control of farming's impact on biodiversity is something we should be doing more of but elimination of farming would not stop humans impacting on the rest of the natural environment. Also again a reduction in the scale of livestock farming would reduce this issue.Point 4 - Need to feed carnivorous (T3P4)R1 stated extreme examples, I do not believe that the maintenance of the biodiversity of our landscape to be an extreme example. We are not talking about isolated incidents but as a part of the ongoing protection of endangered species. In knowingly sending an animal to it's death we are slaughtering the animal, whether that be at the hands of a carnivore, a human, a machine or a cliff.So to summarize my argument so far.We are discussing complete elimination of all livestock slaughter for food. I argue that this is not the preferred option to a world of reduced meat consumption with higher standards of animal welfare. I am arguing this on three main themes,1 - The majority of people do not want it and therefore enforcement of it would be un-democratic, this has not been refuted.2 - Our bodies require nutrients commonly found in meat that are difficult to find in non-meat products. I do not argue that a purely vegetarian diet is less healthy than what we currently consume, just that meat is a vital part, even if it is a small part, of a healthy balanced and varied diet.3 - The environmental impact of livestock farming can be managed through a reduction in meat consumption and better farming methods. Damage can be done to the environment through any human activity, including plant farming.