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

I'd also like to apologize for something that I did - or failed to do. Con is absolutely right when he says that my health argument lacks sources. As I said, I began to run out of room very quickly towards the end of the argument, and I completely forgot to include those sources at all. I will gladly include them at the end of my argument and would, again, like to apologize for leaving them out initially. Ethical: Con makes a very good point when he says that many of my arguments focus around factory farming and not an omnivore diet in general. This is true. However, I think it still makes the case for veganism for a few reasons: 1) Factory farming is the only sustainable way to produce meat on a national level. There are thousands of local farms and pastures in the United States and other developed nations, but the vast majority of our population still consumes factory farm meat and dairy products. The reason for this is simple: it's cheap. As it stands now, there is simply no way to provide enough meat, milk, and eggs for this nation (and other developed nations) without factory farming; local farms cannot meet the demand. As a result, I think that the consumption of animal products are very closely related, although neither is necessary for the other. That aside, I actually would argue that there is no "humane" way to consume animals. Breeding a sentient being for the sole purpose of being killed is not, in my view, humane. There may be less suffering involved in the process, which should be commended, but the end result is still the same: the death of the creature for our enjoyment. Here, again, I must go back to the pet example. If thousands of dogs and cats were being bred for the sole purpose of having their throats slit and their bodies used as food, many people would protest. I assume the "humane" aspect of it would not do much to sway them. (Anticipated argument: euthanasia of animals. I consider this to be unfortunate but often necessary, just as I do in the case of humans. In this case, it boils down to the principle of breeding the animals only to be killed. ) I believe that animals are not ours to kill and exploit, simply because we have the ability to. It may be an unfortunate truth that humans used to need to kill animals to survive, but that has long since ceased to be necessary. Con has not given any justification for humans killing and exploiting animals. Is it because they're weaker than us? By that logic, can stronger humans not exploit and kill weaker ones on the basis that they are weak? I am interested to hear con's case here. This is an issue that is inherent in being an omnivore, not just in factory farms. (Con also accused me of being misleading on the point that ancient humans used to eat mostly fruits and vegetables. I hope I was not unclear or came across as meaning that they did not eat meat at all, because that is not the case. However, this link should clear it up: . http://www.huffingtonpost.com...) Environmental: Here, again, many of my points related to factory farming. And I'd like to point out, again, that as it stands now, factory farming is the only sustainable way to produce meat and dairy. That aside, many of the statistics I provided do not necessarily relate to factory farming. The amount of water and grain needed to raise animals applies whether it is in the context of factory farming or not; obviously, factory farming will require more, but that really doesn't matter. Any remotely large farm will require these resources. They will also face the problem of animal waste. As I stated in my initial argument, animal waste can cause myriad health problems in humans, and can very easily pollute water sources. None of these are inherent in factory farming, but they are all inherent in raising animals for consumption. Veganism would almost completely eliminate this problem. (I say almost because animals, in their natural environment and reproducing at their natural rate, would still cause a trivial amount of pollution. ) Con also states that meat is more nutritious than non-meat items, and the resources required to produce it are therefore necessary. This is not true, however. Con assumes that more protein is better and meat can feed more, stating that this is the reason early man didn't starve. A few things here: 1) I have conceded that early man may have needed meat for survival, but have shown that this is no longer necessary. It is very easy to get all the nutrients you ned on a vegan diet (I will say more about this when I get to health). 2) More protein isn't automatically better. In fact, many nutritionists maintain that most of us actually get "too much" protein every day (or more than enough). Soy, nuts, beans, and other vegan alternatives provide plenty of protein, and they do so without the fat, cholesterol, and without the risk of cancers. (. http://www.medicinenet.com...) Once again, we are no longer hunter-gatherers. We have a multitude of non-meat protein sources, most of which are healthier than meat. Health: Here I must take issue with many of con's arguments. Cancer: This was based on a study done in 1994 that has since been refuted; data from 2012 indicates breast cancer rates are significantly lower in countries with plant-based diets. Tuberculosis: This study actually states that individuals with low vitamin D intakes are at higher risk for tuberculosis, which is common in some areas in Asia with plant-based diets. This is not inherent in veganism and is easily treated. Salmonella: This seemed to check out; however, meat-related cases are much more common. Once source states that "During 2008 alone, 1,034 foodborne disease outbreaks were reported. More than 23,000 people got sick during these outbreaks, and 22 people died. Almost half of the outbreaks had a single cause or food source. Norovirus was the most common cause, accounting for nearly half of the outbreaks and illnesses. The top foods that caused the outbreaks were poultry (15%), beef (14%), and fish (14%). " (. http://www.cdc.gov...) Soy and cancer: This showed no link at all between soy and cancer. It only stated that one cancer clinic in the world has "suspected" soy of causing cancer. Vitamin B-12: This vitamin is found in bulk in almond milk, coconut milk, soy milk, tofu, tempeh, and many other vegan alternatives to meat and dairy. Vitamin B-12 also comes in pill form, so the idea of vegans not being able to get it is completely unfounded. As for my health argument, here are all the sources I neglected to put in the first round (which, again, I apologize for). Red meat and cancer: . http://www.nytimes.com... Other meats and dairy and cancer: . http://www.cancerproject.org... This study shows that in addition to red meat causing cancer, all cooked meat (pork, seafood, chicken) contains carcinogenic compounds. It also states that "Harvard researchers recently conducted a prospective analysis of 90,655 premenopausal women. .. and determined that intake of animal fat, especially from red meat and high-fat dairy products, during premenopausal years is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. Increased risk was not associated with vegetable fats. " Conclusion: The health and environmental benefits of veganism are clear. Meat-based diets greatly increase the risk of colon, stomach, and prostate cancer in men and women and put women at a higher risk for breast cancer. Vegan alternatives have no link to cancer and are lower in fat and cholesterol. I have also made my case for ethical reasons, which is not only in factory farming. All of these ethical, environmental, and health issues can be avoided with a vegan diet.