Veganism is a morally superior choice than being a non vegetarian.

Good luck with the debate.Just a few definitions of my own to start off.industry- any general business activity; commercial enterprisebusiness - the purchase and sale of goods in an attempt to make a profit.Rebuttals:By being a non- vegetarian, one supports the meat industry:While this is a true statement, it is not true for all people. There are people who supply all of their meat through hunting, fishing, and the growth of private livestock. Since growth of livestock that won't be sold isn't a business, it would be an exceptable way to have meat without supporting the meat industry.Killing any sentient living being is wrong:Killing is not wrong depending on the circumstances. To kill someone for personal gain is unnacepptable. To kill someone trying to kill you, however, is perfectly acceptable. Killing someone to save others is acceptable. It all depends on the reason for killing. Killing an animal to eat in order to survive is accetable. Killing it for fun isn't. I'll address this further in my arguments.Arguments:Religon: We both claim to be religious. Religion is a big source for the foundation of morals. There are multiple accounts in the Bible where it is shown that eating animals is acceptable. "And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes in the sea; into your hands are they delivered. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. But flesh with the life thereof, shall ye not eat." Genesis 9:2-4 KJV. Here is can be seen that God gave us permission to eat anything. The only rule is that we can't eat something alive. Once it has been killed, it is no longer alive. "And the Lord spoke unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them. Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat Among all the beasts that are on the earth. Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is cloven-footed, and cheweth the cud, Among the beasts, that shall ye eat." Leviticus 11:1-3 KJV. After these verses, there is a rather longwinded explanation of one rule. There is no eating of anything that chews cud and is NOT cloven footed or anything that is cloven footed yet doesn't chew cud. The reason for this is that they are unclean to us. I'll provide a few more verses. "These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat." Leviticus 11:9 KJV. "And these are they which ye shall have in abomination Among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the osprey; And the vulture, and the kite after his kind; Every raven after his kind; And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckoo, and the hawk after his kind, And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl, And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier-eagle, And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat." Leviticus 11:13-19 KJV. God has also ordered the utter destruction of other humans as shown in the Bible. "Now go and smite Am'-a-lek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and @ss." I Samuel 15:3 KJV. As previously stated, religion is a huge foundation for morals. The god acknowledged by the top three religions, judaism, islam, and christianity, not only doesn't forbid the consumtion of meat, but encourags it. It is also shown that God does NOT say killing is wrong no matter what.I'm sorry, but I don't know the hindu equivalent of the Bible. Could you tell me what it is so I can search for examples from it as well?Meat Industry: Just because you eat meat doesn't mean that you support the meat industry as I previously stated. Also, the eaters of the meat aren't necessarily the morally wrong people. The producers are. They are the ones putting the animals into the cramped and terrible conditions they are in. The average consumer doesn't walk into a store and contemplait the life of the animal they are about to buy parts of. Calling them immoral for that is hardly just. Revise the system in which the animals are raised so that they have a quality life for however long it lasts.Being A Vegan Is No Better Than Being a Non-Vegan When in Terms of Animal treatment: The meat eaters are faulted for their consumtion of animals because the animals killed can be seen. There is little acknowledgment for the unseen death that comes with crop production. One case that was acknowledged is that of DDT. It is a no longer used pesticide once sprayed on crops. It is no longer used because of the environmental impact it had. First of all, it killed countless insects to allow more crops to be brought in. Those bugs would be eaten by other animals where the DDT would accumulate. The other animals would then be eaten by certain birds of prey. The DDT weakened the shells of the eggs of these birds so that they cracked when sat upon. DDT, a pesticide used to promote plant growth, caused very severe environmental problems. More directly, though, it resulted in the death of many insects and unborn birds while bringing some birds to the brink of extinction. Why was this acceptable when killing animals to eat them isn't? It took a ton of work to address this problem and even now, people are trying to reverse that work. One of the main goals of the republicans is to eliminate the EPA. While the EPA isn't a result of DDT alone, the DDT problems certainly helped get it founded. Even now, we continue to poison animals to protect our crops. Not just insects, but rats as well. [2] Another question, why is it acceptable to kill rodents in your house when it is unnaceptable to eat meat? Finally, take into consideration the animals that can no longer survive when new farms are built and habitats are destroyed as a result.[1] http://dictionary.reference.com......[2] http://www.animalcontrol.com.au......Look at the second rebutal. THe first word in each line is some variation of kill. I found that a little funny.