Every adult in first world countries should be vegan.

Round 3 my opponent's arguments will be in bold and italics and mine in plain text."I will go line by line for the rebuttal, then extend my first argumentFirst my opponent gives a definition of absolutism but fails to explain why it is best for this round. Where's your warrant?" MaryI already explained that animal cruelty is never justified. That is my warrant. "Then my opponents assumes I think the meat industry would be eliminated overnight, however my supporting evidence is specific to things like GDP and why the vegetarian and vegan industry would NOT be able to replace it. You have to disprove this warrant in order to gain ground because if there is no other SUSTAINABLE alternative to food production in the status quo, adopting radical veganism does more harm than good. In counter to environmental claims, here is a good article about the misconceptions of meat industry environmental harms, and justification to its use in diets. " MaryThis is a little confusing, you seem to imply that veganism is not environmentally sustainable in addition to the economic penalty. First, justice is more important than economy. As I've stated before its unjust to slaughter animals. Mainly because its unnecessary. I've read your link about Fairlie and it confirms the current agribusiness is inefficient. Then, goes on to talk about pigs eating parts of grains that would be composted. This is unconvincing, first composting replenishes the soil. It is not like the part of the grain that isn't used just disappears. Second, there's no figures to compare from credible sources."Then my opponent claims that meat would be outlawed when vegans were the majority. This is incorrect for several reasons. First, there are many real world examples of bad things that are in the minority and still legal such as cigarettes, dog meat, and duck meat. According to an article published in the last two years ( http://inhabitat.com...... ) it is still legal in 6 states to eat cat and dog meat, meaning a federal ban of meat coming from cows and chickens is highly unlikely even in a pre dominantly vegan world." MaryLet's not get too sidetracked. We can speculate all we want about the future, but I don't think this is getting us anywhere."Then my opponent makes to claims 1) that my impact and warrant don't match. This is not true, the reason humanity could not survive a vegan diet in this example had nothing to do with the health debate but the sustainability debate which I can't seem to get my opponent to answer directly. This article is excellent on this debate (https://gpfarmblog.wordpress.com...... ) and explains why things like the amount of healthy land able to be used is not sufficient and will not become sufficient, and all plant diet would use too much water to sustain the earth and itself, and many plants would not survive growing in industrial conditions which are the only conditions that would be able to produce enough in the first place. A worldwide vegan diet is unsustainable, end of story." MaryWell first and foremost, this debate is about 1st world countries adults. Which is not a worldwide vegan diet. I didn't read though your entire warrant, but the only argument with teeth that I saw made was high quality crop growing land versus lesser quality livestock. The problem of course is a lot of animals are factory farmed, and being fed grain from high quality crop growing land. "Then my opponent says that the developing countries impact doesn't make sense and that I am agreeing the world should become vegan. These are both incorrect. First, the exclusion of second and third world countries from the pro contention means the pro can never solve which, on the most fundamental level possible, is the point I was trying to make. Second, I am saying that the entire world WOULD HAVE TO become vegan to make any real change, but not that it SHOULD. That is why I am Con in this debate." MarySecond and third world countries are not within the scope of this debate. I've seen this type of argument made before, that the difference would be negligible. Yet, look at the numbers by simply getting rid of factory farmed beef we can save a lot of water and free up a lot of crop land. Every drop of water counts. "Then my opponent says their authors are credible and mine would have to be vegan to be credible. First of all your authors are not credible. You applied their philosophy to prove people should be vegan, but they themselves weren't meaning obviously they did not feel the need to apply there own philosophy in the way you are doing as the pro. Second, my authors would actually have to be meat eaters to be credible because a) most of them are writing from medical and moral standpoints and b) they must practice what they preach to be credible." MaryI think regardless of the person's diet what really matter is are they correct? Justice is always important. Sure MLK was not vegan, but I think its wrong to confine his words just to the issue he was addressing. I think Dawkins is correct that humans have drawn an arbitrary line between animals and humans. What Dawkins eats is irrelevant to the correctness of the previous statement."Finally my opponent addresses humane washing. I'd like to start off answering this by offering this article :https://medium.com...... (morality debate) . It gives empirical evidence as to how a vegan world would actually be a world more cruel to animals. The warrants are very long and I don't have enough characters to elaborate on them. I would also like to point out that my opponent has turned an argument they made on their own case into a reason to vote against them and that is this: logically, if meat is outlawed like a drug, prostitution, etc people would react violently and meat eating would become a violent merciless trade. Ever heard the expression "laws are meant to be broken" ?" MarySadly, there is some logic to your statements about outlawing meat production. Just as many nations have lost the war on drugs, that making animals illegal to slaughter would create a black market. Yet, this fails to address humane washing. In fact, the words "humane washing" is not within the article. This is important, because there is virtually no difference between conventional and cage-free eggs. "Extend all my health claims in round 1 including the counter claim I made at the very end. here are a couple of credible articles to contribute to the health debate:http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com......http://articles.mercola.com...... (health factor)" MaryMercola is renowned or being a quack. As for the healthyhomeeconomist it mentions that there is only 150 or so vegetables and plants. So what? How is that relevant? More importantly there is only like 5 animals we eat, and there is plenty of heirloom vegetables. Let's see chicken, pig, cow, turkey, and salmon. Far less variety in the animals we eat than 150. "Next extend my ethics argument. My opponent has failed to disprove that ethics are solely a human concept . This is critical for the debate because applying justice to animals serves no purpose if animals themselves cannot recognize it as justice. It is simply self serving for the pro." MaryLink 5 in previous round is Mercola the Quack. See my link 6 slaughtering the amazon.The mentally challenged and comatose patients don't understand justice, yet you can't just slaughter one for meat. They have rights too. The idea that the animal must recognize justice seems arbitrary. "Next extend my economy argument at the top of my con case. Any risk of damaging the meat industry's GDP, even with gradual transition, means you vote neg because it is still the biggest impact in this round." MaryJustice trumps economy, there is no way around this. People were upset about abolishing slavery of humans. Somehow we survived the economic downfall. Thanks for debate, out of characters. http://www.quackwatch.com...