The practice of eating meat is unethical

Thank you so much for your thoughtful response, Rekthor! I will first point out all of the arguments I have made that my opponent directly conceded. 1) Despite pointing out that I need more unbiased sources, my opponent has conceded that there is no legal protection for chickens in factory farms. Even though my opponent conceded, I will again cite using a website sponsored by the Michigan State University College of Law, outlining exactly how non-human animal protections do not apply to chickens. (http://www.animallaw.info...) 2) My opponent seems to concede that factory farms are unethical: "The practice of how its [an animal] [is] obtained and how its [an animal] could very well be unethical..." Next, I will point out all of the arguments that my opponent conceded indirectly through dropping them. I say "concede" firstly because my opponent had ample space and time to answer (5905 characters left, 2 days)but chose not to,thereby conceding these points. Secondly, my opponent's dropping these points must be considered conceding because I will not be able to argue against them again. If (s)he tries to bring up new analysis on old arguments, (s)he will be effectively denying me a chance to answer them, which would be sneaky, unethical, and unfair. Judge, because my opponent chose not to answer them and had the means to do so, you must count these points as dropped: 1) That the justification of slavery was based on the "inhumanity" of people with different bodies. 2) That black "animals" during slavery were assigned value based on the gains of the dominant group, in this case white "humans," instead of having inherent value. This caused unbelievable instances of what society now deems to be "atrocities." 3) That American Indians were judged inhuman because they had a different culture from that of Europeans. Because they were not considered human, they were abused and slaughtered. 4) That society generally uses irrelevant requirements for separating the human from the non-human. 5) That such a dehumanization leads to horrific practices and genocide 6) That society's using the biological "species" classification for the differentiating the other is ridiculous and problematic to the same degree as sexism, homophobia, and racism. 7) That one who lives with pets naturally understand that non-human animals have their own inherent value independent of their price tags. 8) That 99% of meat comes from factory farms. 9) That 99% of slaughtered animals come from the United States. 10) That if we are discussing meat eating as a general practice, talking about factory farms in the United States is most relevant. 11) That chickens and turkeys are not protected by law and live in excruciating pain for their entire lives due not only to their poor treatment but due to the fact that they are bred to be extraordinarily overweight. 12) That the pain of these overweight poultry apply to virtually all farms, even among the less than one percent not factory farming. 13) That pigs, chickens, and turkeys are born to breed and die and never see the light of day. 14) That chickens are often boiled alive or have their throats cut while conscious. 15) That pigs live in their waste in captivity for their entire lives, causing such severe neurotic, self-harming behavior. 16) That cows are either imprisoned for life or slaughtered as children. 17) That factory farming causes global warming 18) That factory farming causes soil erosion 19) That these practices consist of the torture of innocents 20) That these practices are unjust. Here are some especially important dropped arguments: 21) That eating meat symbolically places humankind above other creatures, suggesting that non-human animals are morally and intellectually inferior 22) That eating meat engages in a system of torture that would be horrible for anyone 23) That eating meat funds these systems of tortures 24) That this problem is mostly ignored 25) That 9 billion non-human animals are slaughtered yearly in America. 26) That a human's enjoying flesh comes at the price of the agony of non-human animals 27) That the argument that eating meat is natural to the human species is like saying rape is natural for men 28) That factory-farming is akin to the consuming of slaves. 29) That non-human animals have value independent of their economic value 30) That not eating meat is actually good for one's body. All of the above points have not been addressed directly by my opponent. I will now address problems with my opponent's arguments. 1) My opponent said my sources were biased and I refused to cite where chickens aren't protected by law. Here was my first citation: http://www.peta.org.... I also gave a second above. My opponent gives no sources at all and also does not isolate any examples of where my sources' information messed up. My opponent dropped this argument later. 3) My opponent claims that my argument is "meaningless" because I don't talk about how eating meat is unethical, only that factory farms are unethical. My opponent dropped points 21, 22, 23, 26 which point out reasons why eating meat is unethical (mostly that it funds atrocities and is anthropocentric). I will give some additional reasons to further link eating meat to being unethical. By eating meat, one is participating in a kind of slave trade. My opponent has dropped point 28 that equates factory farms to slavery, so this is certainly applicable. In addition to that, buying meat is unethical because it puts a price tag on the life of an animal, who lived and died in pain for a few seconds of unhealthy delight. Also, if all or most people were vegetarian, the factory farm system would begin to crumble. Even a few vegetarians can have an economic impact on factory farms. By never eating meat again, one will have refused to purchase hundreds of animals. Multiply this by hundreds of thousands, and then millions of non-human animals will go un-purchased. Additionally, not eating meat encourages other to do the same, and gets a dialogue going on how our treatment of animals is ghastly and horrific. 4) My opponent state that (s)he would be equally validated in saying that killing animals quickly and "cleanly," and are cared for "well" on independent farms would be ethical. Unfortunately this is not the case. The weight problems of poultry occur across virtually all farms. Additionally, these animals are not in their habitat and are the captives of humans. My opponent's arguments are similar to the one's that long ago were used to defend slavery: that its cruel masters, and not the institution of slavery, that is the problem. Additionally, the farms that my opponent is talking about are extraordinarily rare, and irrelevant for the general practice of eating meat. Also, (s)he neglects my analysis on why eating meat is anthropocentric and an exchange of pleasure for torture, like rape. It also places a price tag on life, which is partially why slavery was cruel. 5) I'm not suggesting that there's something "inherently" wrong with eating meat in the abstract: however, eating meat in the real world is unethical. At the beginning my opponent agreed that I would only need to defend the general practice of eating meat, and not particular hypothetical examples. 6) Our predecessors are not the topic of the debate but us. We would be healthier eating no meat, as you conceded to. 7) The treatment of the animal is relevant to eating meat, as I've pointed out multiple times. 8) My opponent's discussion of the bank is a slippery slope fallacy and strawman fallacy. Purchasing or eating something like slave meat is different from taking out a load. Besides, if banks commit genocide don't go to them. 9) The children scenario is a strawman. We don't need meat to survive, and if we did, that would be an isolated scenario and not meat-eating as defined. Vegetarianism is good for you and safe. --Pro