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

My opponent has spent this entire debate trying to prove that killing is morally wrong no mater what. The problem is that killing is often morally right. The definition provided by my opponent for morals is: Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character. Hitler's holocaust was an action that was deemed bad. Therefore, it is morally wrong. The execution of Nazi higher-ups at the Nuremberg Trials was deemed a good action. Therefore it is morally right. If you are in a life or death situation, then no one will fault you for killing to survive that situation. Therefore, killing in that situation is morally right. Eating meat has not been deemed bad by the vast majority of the human population. Therefore, the consumption of meat is morally right. Since consuming that meat is morally right, and the animals need to be killed to be eaten, killing those animals is morally right. The way in which most of those animals may not be morally right, but the killing and eating of them is. My opponent has conceded that morals do in fact change based on time and location. Therefore, there cannot possibly be a universal yardstick for morality. What is considered moral and immoral in the modern day West is not the same as what was considered moral and immoral in the West 200 years ago. It is not the same as what's considered moral in modern day Third World Nations. What's considered moral and immoral is not the same between the parties of the United States. The far right conservatives would sooner see the world's water supply unusable and all the forests gone then see a poor economy. On the other hand, the far left liberals would sooner see us in communist Russia than see some people have more wealth than others. There cannot be a universal yardstick of morality. That would imply that every situation can be looked at from the exact same angle. As such, it cannot be decided that killing is morally wrong no matter what. Going on that standpoint, my opponent would like to have Pol Pot, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Hirohito, Benito Mussolini, Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Ladin and every other warlord or dictator alive and free because we shouldn't be inflicting pain, injury or death. Killing those dictators would be causing death. The morally correct world as described by my opponent is one that allows the scum of the planet to run free because killing is morally wrong and jailing them makes for a poor life longing for freedom.My opponent also tries to refute my claim that following nature is immoral if it calls for killing. By that standard, every predatory creature out there is going to burn in Hell because they kill. That is absurd. Whatever supreme being you believe in intentionally made animals carnivorous. Therefore, that supreme being has decided that human consumption of meat is right. If you don't believe in a supreme being, then there is other evidence. There is the fact that, like all predators, humans can see in three dimensions. We have our eyes set close together on the front of our heads. Prey animals have their eyes spread out to see more. There is also the fact that we have sharp canine teeth for ripping and tearing of meat. However you want to look at it, we are meant to eat meat and therefore, we cannot be morally wrong for doing so. Saying the opposite is the equivalent of saying we are morally wrong for surviving.*Just a note here, the definition provided for war by my opponent is more or less the definition of genocide. The definition of war is much different.genocide - the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial,political, or cultural group.war - active hostility or contentionMy opponent tried to play on my example of the beating of women being considered morally acceptable at one time by having various activities carried out by different animals. Some of those actions are immoral in our society for several reasons. However, many of those actions considered immoral were never human actions. We have almost never been a species that hunts for the fun of the kill. There are a few people out there that do, but most hunt for food. We have never killed our siblings to further our survival. The animals cited by my opponent are all born in groups. There may very well not be enough food for them all. The strongest survive and the weakest perish. With the human species, babies are normally born one at a time. Therefore, there'd rarely be more young than the group could support. If there were too many, the weakest would die through lack of nourishment, not through sibling murder. Depending on where you are in the world, fighting for territory is perfectly ok. And humans still fight for mates, just not necessarily with as violent a means as we once might have. Now, people try to look better than everyone else to draw the eye of the opposite sex. There is still combat and survival of the fittest there as the unfit and poorly dressed are less likely to get someone. Some societies have eaten people. Their actions were deemed good by their society therefore they were morally correct in their society. Mantises always eat their mates That has never been a human behavior.My opponent's only argument against religion is that Hinduism has many books and is hard to get a read on. There are books in the Hindu religion that promote the consumption of meat. There have been no examples provided were it is expressly forbidden. My opponent has also ignored the Bible. The Bible is the book of Christianity and the first half is also the book of Judaism. Islam follows much of the same teachings, and shares the same god as Judaism and Christianity. Therefore, the top 3 religions in the world all promote the consumption of meat. My opponent has tried to make it seem like I said we should cage livestock for life. I have not. I simply said that an animal cannot desire something it never knew. There has been no evidence to prove this false.My opponent has also tried arguing that Vegans are morally superior because they don't hurt animals. I have shown how this is false. To grow crops, there are many "pest" animals that are exterminated. Plus, there are animals that no longer have habitats when farms are built. Many animals are killed each year to provide plant products. Therefore, veganism isn't so violence free as my opponent would have you think. My opponent has also tried to make it seem like those who eat meat take pleasure out of pain. I know I don't. I would venture to say that most people out there don't. There are a few, but most don't take pleasure from the suffering of others. Eating for survival is not taking pleasure in the suffering of others.Vote CON.PS: I also enjoyed this debate for the same reason. I believe in my side. And restarting the debate was no problem. Better than getting points because of an accidental forfeit.