Every adult in first world countries should be vegan.

There are three things this debate comes down to: Impacts, evidence, and the morality/justice debate Let's start line by line First my opponent claims animal cruelty is never justified. I agree, but I also made the distinction in the first round between suffering and death, and my opponent has clearly conceded that there are moral alternatives to the pro case. Farming reform through legislation being amongst the best options. It has nothing to do with cattle ranchers or grass fed cows, but true reform that makes farming smarter and more sustainable. Then my opponent attempts to discredit my Farlie link but completely overlooks it's most important arguments. Farlie cannot compare numbers because this country has never been on an all vegan diet and secondarily, Farlie discusses that the amount needed to plot that much vegetation and sustain it so it does not endanger consumers is not feasible. There are multiple warrants but I have limited characters and highly suggest that voters read the article for themselves. Next my opponent says let's not speculate about the future and I agree, for the last round it's a waste of characters. Then my opponent claimed that a majority of my environmental impacts should be disregarded because the pro case is exclusive to the first world. Here's where my opponent makes a major contradiction because then the impacts of justice and morality are completely taken away. If the pro case can act as an entity that has the power to gradually abolish meat in ALL first world countries, then choosing not to do the same in other parts of the world means my opponent is in a double bind that I discussed in round two. Then, I win the morality debate by at least keeping the status quo which would actually be more morally sound. That is where my opponent was confused in this debate. In addition, my opponent has yet to answer any of my environmental warrants to what a vegan first workd is probelmatic such as water usage (mildly contested but never had any evidence or warrants to back it up) , amount of healthy and available land, amount of output required, and many of my links from the first round have also been overlooked. If anything, I don't need to win economy because I've already proved there is more than enough evidence that the plan will fail. It's sad that I was never able to get into a really good warrant debate about the environment. The only claim made that tried to challenge mine was that grain is composite or, but my opponent overlooks the fact that the amount of grain the U.S. produces is also unsustainable and would contradict efforts to create a absolute vegetarian diet in this country. As for humane washing, it really is of no issue in this debate round. As long as impacts like black markets, second and third world countries lack of vegan diet, and inability to have sustainability outweigh it, there is no need to consider it as a major impact in the round. In answer to Mercola, 1) he's a member of ACN, ANA, IABDM, and multiple health organizations that at least give him the minimum requirements necessary to be a credible source. If you don't want to accept that, then there is still no issues because the health debate is almost non existent at this point. In answer to healthy homes the article talks about how when we industrialize plants, we will lose diversity. That's a serious issue because bio diversity is key to survival. I strongly encourage voters to read these articles, from both debaters, so you gain a better understanding of how the impact debate favors the con. Finally my opponent made two comparisons. First they compared animals understanding of justice to comatose patients understanding of it, and as much as I find it problematic use that example, it does prove my point; animals have no mental capacity to underrand justice. Next they compared justice outweighing the economy to the injustice of slavery. First of all, there are many published articles about capitalism and the incentive to improve the economy one of the most prominent reasons that the civil war was successful. I don't know if I can post new evidence since it's the last round but if you'd like an article or multiple articles comment and id be happy to provide them to you. Second, to compare the justice of freeing slaves to the justice of freeing animals is an insult to many people. Slavery is a human rights issue, becoming a vegan is not under any circumstance one that falls under that same category (for obvious reasons). Here is the link to the animals will be worse off argument: https://medium.com... My final statement is this: I have proved that the environment, the economy, and even the morality of our world will under no circumstance be improved with the pro case. To make it easy and simple, my opponent failed to correctly refute my best piece of evidence which talks about how animals would, if anything, be in more danger. Thanks for the debate..