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

For clarification, Pro has declared round 2 will be for arguments and round 3 will be for rebuttals. I'm assuming these guidelines are for his position specifically as the BOP is not shared, meaning my only burden is to counter his arguments, not to provide prima facie justification for eating meat. Given this, I will now proceed with countering Pro's arguments. Counter Arguments1. Ethical IssuesThe bulk of Pro's argument revolves around the ethical issues of factory farming and animal cruelty. While these things may or may not be unethical, depending on your definition of morality, this isn't necessarily an argument for veganism. Being an omnivore doesn't mean you support factory farms or torturing livestock. One can both eat meat and oppose the current condition of the meat industry, which brings me to the main point of my rebuttal for this argument; these aren't arguments against omnivorism. These are arguments against the way the current meat industry is managed. As it turns out, people of all sorts, vegan or otherwise have stood up in opposition to the current way farming is being done. Consider the "Ethical Onmivorism" movement [9]. I personally disprove of factory farming and animal cruelty, but that doesn't mean I think that the actual act eating meat is unethical nor do the arguments presented here by Pro attempt to show that to be the case. It's not beyond the scope of the human imagination to think of humane ways to raise and kill livestock, so unless Pro contends that killing animals for food in all cases is unethical (which he would then be required to argue for) he has not actually argued for veganism. Before continuing, there is one misunderstanding in particular that I feel needs to be cleared up right now. Pro has claimed that our ancestors were primarily fruit and vegetable eaters. This is simply not the case. The vast majority of Cro-mangon's diet was meat and it wasn't until after the agricultural revolution that man's diet shifted from mostly meat to mostly plants. Interestingly enough, man's brain also shrank roughly 300cc after this shift. [1]2. EnvironmentalMuch of the issues Pro brings up here is also relative to factory farming. Once again, omnivorism is not predicated on factory farming so I'm not actually required to argue against this as most of these issues have to do with poor management and not issues with cultivating livestock period. However, Pro does bring up an interesting point; it takes a lot of resources to feed and raise livestock. In fact, to grow a 1300lb cow requires roughly 2800lbs of corn -- A little more than double the animal's body weight [2]. While this may seem like a waste of resources, consider that the meat we get from animals are far more nutritious than the plants we used to grow them. A one pound steak will have around 750-900 calories and roughly 100g of protein, with some cuts reaching 1115 calories and 133g of protein [3]. Compare that to one pound of corn which has a mere 390 calories and 14.61g of protein [4]. Keep in mind that protein is incomplete protein, meaning you have to eat another source of protein for that 14.61g to count anyway. Granted, we don't eat the entirety of the cows we grow, but we do use every part and it goes without saying that we can do things with cow parts that we simply cannot do with corn, meaning that growing cattle is is economically advantageous in several sectors of the market. There's a reason why early man didn't starve en masse after he started cultivating livestock and that reason is, plainly put, that animal meat is a worth while investment. Yes the mismanagement of waste is a problem, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Veganism is not the only solution this problem. Society could vote with there dollars, so to speak, and chose to buy meat not from factory farms, thereby raising demand for meat from well cared for livestock. This way we solve the issues that stem from factory farms without losing out on the nutritional benefits of meat.3. HealthPro lists several health issues he claims are linked to a non-vegan diet. Most of these claims are unsourced and either way Pro provides no statistical figures on most of these claims to give us an idea of how significant these factors are. Without this, these claims don't mean much. I understand Pro was running out of space at this point, so I assume he's planning on developing this argument further next round. Now, let's consider the ramifications of a vegan diet. Cancer [5]In women over 50, increased meat consumption reduced the incidence of breast cancer by 30% whilst eating more fruit increased breast cancer incidences by 70%Tuberculosis [6]Vegans have a higher rate of tuberculosis. Even lacto-vegetarians have an 8.5 times greater chance of getting tuberculosis. Salmonella [7]Alfalfa sprouts are an efficient carrier of salmonella and in 1995, 20,000 people were infected with salmonella due to a single contaminated seed lot from a Dutch distributor. Soy and Cancer [8]The Gerson Clinic (a specialist cancer clinic) has long banned the use of soy products in the clinic as it is a suspected carcinogen. Vitamin B-12 [9]Vitamin B-12 is vital for human life. Vegans are notorious for B-12 deficiencies which causes mental disturbances ranging from abnormal mood swings, mental slowness and memory problems, through hallucinations and depression to severe psychosis. Physical symptoms include: rapid heartbeat, cardiac pain, facial swellings, jaundice, weakness and fatigue and loss of weight. There's much more, but I think I've made my point. The fact of the matter is, one's personal health comes down to several factors. Yes, over indulging in meat has it's consequences, but not eating meat at all is literally a death sentence once your B-12 reserves are depleted. The key here is moderation. Pro ends by mentioning that 5000 deaths and 76 million cases of food-borne illness occur annually. This statistic in meaningless as food borne illnesses are not unique to meat products as I've shown. ConclusionPro has a pretty solid case here. Unfortunately that case is against factory farming and not meat-eating. He has yet to argue for the immorality and environmental damage caused by cultivating livestock in general and his health argument was lacking both in substance and in development. At this time his BOP is not fulfilled. I look forward to your response. Sources1. . http://www.paulcooijmans.com...2. . http://www.extension.org...3. . http://www.calorie-charts.net...4. . http://www.fatsecret.com... 5. . http://www.second-opinions.co.uk... 6. . http://www.second-opinions.co.uk...7. . http://www.second-opinions.co.uk... 8. . http://www.second-opinions.co.uk...9. . http://en.wikipedia.org...