Be kind towards animals and give them freedom from killing and harassing

Pro's rebuttal focuses on the point that humans are very different from other animals. But humans are animals (even Pro agrees to this). Anyway that is not even my main point. My point is that if we do not raise livestock and kill them, what will we do with them? We will obviously release them into the wild. What will happen then? It is very likely that they will be killed by carnivores especially since animals like cows, chickens, sheep etc have been selectively bred to be fat (and hence slow, easy to kill). So the result is the same whether we kill them or we release them into the wild doomed to inevitable slaughter and a life of fear. I can say that this can be a new scenario to the world to write in books for next generation to explain about our present generation people in future. Thanks for your example. Uhh, how is this helping your case? I proved in round 1 with an anecdote that witnessing the killing of an animal does not necessarily cause people to become vegans. It depends on the person. our support will be there for the people who is struggling towards plants rights too. .. I am ready to eat only fruits instead of plants and animals1. a diet of only fruits will render you defecient of many nutrients. You will need a balanced diet2. Fruits. come. from. plants. 3. Grabbing fruits of a plant is the equivalent of getting a finger chopped off (plants feel pain). So on my opponent's premise, it is ok to eat fruits of a plant, so it should also be ok to chop of a toe of a chicken and eat it. But looking at pro's stance, it seems that the toe of the chicken will not be ok.4. Yeah, try a diet of 100% fruit for a week. Seriously, try it *it won't last 3 full days*The bottom line is, living things eat other living things to survive (with the exception of most plants) we cannot change that. Unless humans learn how to do photosynthesis, we will need to harm other living beings to get our food. It would be a double standard to stop eating animals on the basis of them feeling pain but continue to eat plants. Hence there should be no restriction on the killing of animal for the consumption of meat. In fact let me say one more thing, FOOD CHAIN. We NEED meat eaters in the food chain, and with the diminishing populations of tigers, lions, etc. we will need to eat animals to maintain ecological balance. There is no more wrong in being meat eaters, than plant eaters. We all do our part in the food chain. Since Pro argues on the basis of his 'god', let me remind him that according to his beleifs, 'god' has given humans cannine teeth. The teeth are there for a reason, to eat animals. If you, dear reader are an atheist like me then remove 'god', insert 'natural selection'. The canines allowed us to survive which is why we still have them. Pro's arguments in this entire debate are based on the premise that non human animals feel pain when being killed and they have a right to live on this earth. Since it is obvious that the only alternative food source is plants and that plants also feel pain, Pro's arguments are mortally wounded. In round 1 Pro said We have brain maturity, thinking power and tongue capability, but animals have nothing those and they are innocents, innocents, just innocents. First of all: grammar points must be taken from Pro (have nothing those and they are innocents) Second of all: By Pro's logic, having intelligence means you are less innocent. I suppose killing an earthworm is worse than killing a dolphin. Sticking to that point, Trees have even less brain maturity, thinking power and tongue capability even when compared to non human animals. So harming them must be much worse than harming animals. Yet, Pro probably eats plants, or parts of plants every single day. Unless Pro suggests our species should hunger to extinction. Until we develop photosynthesis we cannot help but kill other living things to survive (survival of the fittest, and we are the fittest due to our intelligence). Pro forfeited one round, has faulty premises and I successfully rebutted his points.