Vegetarianism/veganism

Although I am not a vegetarian myself, I believe that there are valid reasons to support vegetarianism/veganism. For this debate, I will be arguing that vegetarianism/veganism is not hypocritical in nature and would actually achieve a purpose if followed by people. I will also argue that vegetarian/vegan diets can be just as healthy as a meat diets if done correctly. The burden of proof will be on pro as he made positive claims about the hypocrisy, harmfulness, and purposeless nature of vegetarianism/veganism. Rebuttals "Some vegetarians/vegans claim that it is cruel to kill and eat animals. However, how is this any different from eating plants or fungi? No matter what you consume, you are eating another organism that was once alive. Some plants or fungi that are eaten are still alive when they're eaten! In a sense, that's even more cruel! Not to mention the countless billions of microscopic organisms that are killed when they're consumed. " Yes, it is very different to eat plants/fungi when compared to animals. The goal of many vegetarians/vegans is to reduce the amount of suffering that results from their lives. Animals eaten today have neurotransmitters that are capable of producing pain, which allow them to suffer(1). Plants do not have brains, and therefore do not have the neurotransmitters to produce pain and suffering. I also wouldn't call it cruel to eat a species that has no ability to feel or think of anything. I welcome you to explain why you would think this is cruel. "Some vegetarians and vegans claim that by choosing their lifestyle, they reduce the amount of animals killed. This is in no way true. Companies and slaughterhouses will still kill just as many animals, as the majority of people are willing to eat meats. Not to mention, even if fewer animals were killed, then a greater number of plants and fungi would need to be killed, essentially resulting in the same death toll for all organisms. " It's all supply and demand. If people, in total, demand more meat, then more animals will be slaughtered in total to sell them that meat. If people demand less meat, then less animals will be slaughtered to sell. This is the way most products in an economy work. Sure, the majority will still want to eat meat, but making even a tiny dent is enough for vegetarians to feel like they are making a small difference, at least to the few animals that would have otherwise been slaughtered to feed them. As mentioned in the prior paragraph, it is about the suffering caused and the idea of killing thinking, feeling beings. These are the drawbacks of eating meat. On the other hand, plants can neither think nor feel, making them a much more desirable thing to eat to a vegetarian. "Say that fewer animals were indeed killed for food, and instead more plants were killed for food. Deforestation has been proven to worsen the effects of global climate change, due to there being fewer photosynthesizing creatures in the world, thus increasing atmospheric pollution, decreasing water and nitrogen filtering by disrupting the cycles further, and increasing planet-wide temperature by allowing more greenhouse gases into the air. This ultimately would result in even MORE animals being killed due to their habitat becoming unlivable, thus making moot the entire purpose of vegetarianism or veganism in the first place. " The truth is, a plant-based diet is way more energy-efficient and environmentally friendly when compared to a meat based diet. For example, If all the grain currently fed to livestock in the United States were consumed directly by people, the number of people who could be fed would be nearly 800 million (2). Also, It takes 7 times more land to live on a meat-diet versus a plant-diet (3). This shows that we would actually require a lot less land to have a vegetarian society, which would overall help with pollution, deforestation, water use, etc. I'll let you respond now. Sources: 1. . http://learntech.uwe.ac.uk... 2. . http://news.cornell.edu... 3. . http://ajcn.nutrition.org...