It should be considered morally wrong to kill sentient animals, without consent, for their meat

Implications: a. Pro conceded that he's addressing humans b. Pro objects that he's arguing "that we must eliminate carnivores" but concedes that he wants to stop them from eating or breeding, which he admits would probably kill them and certainly destroy the species. I'm not sure the point he's making, but it looks like he concedes that his plan would kill most or all carnivores and carnivorous species. c. Pro suggests that starving animals by forcing them to not eat food is not killing them. I beg to differ. Pro is suggesting that humans force animals to starve without their consent, so consent is highly relevant in this context. What Pro is talking about is a genocide against entire species. By placing the blame on animals Pro is turning attention away from the fact that he wants humans to kill hundreds of species. Contention 1: Anthropomorphism It is anthropomorphic to assume that nonhuman animals have a human-like moral code without sufficient evidence. Having the capacity for empathy is not nearly sufficient evidence for human morality as I have pointed out. I am not restricting morality to humans, but pointing out that morality is a human-made construct. There are no non-human philosophers that had a say in the formation of morality that we see today. All we can know from the fact that non-human animals have empathy is that, well, non-human animals have empathy--or an occasional emotional connection to the perceived state of another. My opponent assumes then that animals possess a moral duty to be selfless. My opponent has no evidence for that. My opponent assumes that animals have empathy for their prey. My opponent gave no evidence for that. My opponent assumes that animals have the moral capacity to starve themselves in order to save their prey. My opponent gives no evidence of this. I previously stated that my opponent falls prey to Morgan's Cannon, which suggests that one should not assume a complex process when a simpler process can better explain the behavior (that is, one should default to the simplest explanation of behavior). My opponent entirely dropped Morgan's Cannon evidence, so it is therefore valid. My opponent clearly assumes a complex cognitive explanation when a simpler one is appropriate. My opponent NEVER opposes my claim that anthropomorphism causes suffering to animals, and that we shouldn't use anthropomorphism in debate--so therefore, because my opponent's arguments are anthropomorphic, his debate causes suffering to animals and should automatically be rejected. (Again, Pro didn't oppose that anthropomorphic debates should be rejected; he just said he wasn't being anthropomorphic. I have proved that he is, so he debate MUST be rejected.) Transition to Speciesism: Also, I never state that human morality is "superior," I only imply that it is "more complex." My opponent, however, says that animals have "inferior" morality. This is evidence for my opponent's debate being speciesist. Contention 2: Speciesism Even if you buy that Pro's arguments aren't anthropomorphic, there is no question that they are speciesist. My opponent's saying that human beings have a "superior" morality is speciesist and blind: Homo Sapiens have committed the worst atrocities of any species, including genocide, species extinction, torture, slavery, nuclear weapons, and global warming. Humans are the least moral species by their own standards. Nevertheless, my opponent simply assumes that all other species have inferior morals to humanity, and this assumption of inferiority is both speciesist and flat-out wrong. My opponent claims that this is an Ad Hominem argument, but gives no explanation for why this is the case. This is a legitimate argument. If the human idea of morality is bad for humans, than Pro has no right holding nonhuman animals to these same standards. In fact, nonhuman animals might even be better able to teach humans than vise-versa. 1. I have thoroughly explained why "Even humans can't agree on morality..." My opponent does not disagree with that statement, but suggested that a moral construct is better than no moral construct. This might be the case, but if humans cannot agree on morality, than there is no reason why a single human system of morality should be applied to non-human animals. If this construct cannot be trusted for humans, than it would be absurd to assume that it works for non-human animals. In his "Conclusion," Pro remarks that this system of morality would be unpopular. If it is unpopular among humans, why should we force non-human animals to follow it? Nevertheless, my opponent wants humans to starve off entire species based on trust in this morality. There is no reason for humans to trust this morality for themselves and there is definitely no reason to trust it as a justification for destroying hundreds of species, including possibly humans. 2. My opponent says my argument is Ad Hominem. This is completely wrong; if humans are incapable of coming up with an agreeable or good morality, then there is no reason for non-human animals to follow this morality. There is even less reason for humans to kill those who don't follow said "morality" (which, by the way, is unpopular even for humans). 3. My opponent says that humans should be allowed to judge and kill species that don't follow human standards. This sounds like my opponent is saying Homo Sapiens are superior. This is hardly a straw-man. My opponent also says that humans' morality is superior. My opponent says he never says if animals don't live up to human standards they should be killed. Allow me to remind my opponent: He claims that animals should be stopped from eating if they require meat to survive. This requirement for living is a human standard: Well, not even a human standard because humans don't follow it. It's a "Caploxion standard" by which Caploxion suggests humans kill hundreds of species. End of Life: My opponent admits again that he supports eradicating hundreds of species by starving them to death. I'll admit that ending life is one way of ending suffering, but it is still murder. Besides that, I have pointed out using sources that ending this many species will devastate the food web and create global starvation and the loss of life. My opponent implies that humans could regulate other species to compensate. My opponent does not specify what that would entail, or if it were practical, or if it would save us at all. It is totally impractical and even impossible for a single species, Homo Sapiens, to regulate all other prey species' breeding. There is no reason to think that that would save anyone! Humans have never committed such a grad project. How long must they keep doing it? Why would that help? My opponent gives absolutely no justification/sources to think that all life, or even most life on earth would be extinguished through starvation. I have given evidence for you to think that everyone, even humans will all starve. At the very least, hundreds of species would starve. Utter Immorality: My opponent rejects my analysis of morality that I can't fully summarize because I'm running out of space (see above). Suffice it to say, my opponent claims that carnivores, through eating in order to survive (not immoral), are such immoral creatures that humans (very immoral) ought to kill them all (very, very immoral) to save their prey, who will probably die of starvation (very, very immoral) and allow all life, or even most life, on earth to perish (maximum immorality). These animals have committed no crime other than trying to exist and feel their families. Destroying them would be horrible for everyone, and hypocritical because humans eat meat when they don't need to. No utilitarian good, no justice, no morality, massive genocide. Conclusion: I have made most of my remarks in my specific sub-sections, so please read those. Briefly, my opponent comes up with a ridiculous moral theory to forcibly starve hundreds of species.