It should be considered morally wrong to kill sentient animals for their meat

As I spoke before, "I will first state my information and use the next round to refute my opponents information." My opponent has failed to recognize this single sentence stating, "he has not argued that it is moral or provided counter-arguments to mine." Therefore, I will use this round to provide counter-arguments that I specifically said I would use this round to do. Implying that my opponent may have simply skimmed through my information.Let's begin with round two and refute round three afterwards."Suffering is bad Suffering, in itself, is a bad thing. This can be determined by simply asking any sentient, rational being the question: "in a world where there is only suffering and non-suffering, which would you prefer?" Some may argue that suffering can be good if it means to strengthen character, or if to suffer less in the long-run. However, without any kind of context, with this dichotomy, we can determine that no rational being would ever pick suffering over non-suffering. Thus, suffering is bad (unless there is reason to suffer). Animal suffering is bad Animals that have meat, like humans, have feelings. If it is bad that a human is suffering to an extent, than it is equally that if another animal is suffering to that same extent. It is irrelevant how intelligent the animal is, whether it did something silly to make itself suffer, or how much ‘better’ humans are than other animals (humans are animals too). It is the suffering that is bad, and as to whom or what is suffering is of no consequence. I will now argue that the suffering simply isn’t required. So, specifically, let’s look at Hilal meat were it is a requirement that the animal suffer before death (the slicing of the throat, followed by a draining of blood etc.). Clearly, the suffering inflicted of zero benefit (religious benefit, to be precise) and could be avoided by putting the animal to sleep beforehand. Thus, when it comes to the mass consumption of animal meat, suffering should never be a requirement in terms of both morality and practicality."My opponent has clearly established that suffering is bad. He seems to stray form the topic though, I would like to focus on those sentences as to where he explicitly stated in Round 3. "My opponent has committed the non-sequitor that if it should be considered to kill animals for their meat, that the farmers will lose their land and that they have to get rid of their cows." When my opponent speaks of committing a non-sequitor he has clearly done the same thing for an entire two paragraphs in which he states that suffering as well as animal suffering is "bad". I have experienced first-hand with my personal exposure to agriculture, that cattle do no suffer when they die. They are shot and instantly killed with no pain."Therefore, killing animals for their meat, under any circumstance, is immoral and should be considered as such."My opponent has stated that killing an animal for their meat is wrong under ANY circumstance. I would like to take advantage of that bold claim. I know that a carnivorous, starving sentient animal would without a doubt kill a human. So what is stopping us from doing the same? Did we give that wild dog permission to kill us and eat us? I would assume not. Also, since my opponent has failed to specify I would like to focus on another topic. You say it is wrong to kill sentient animals for their meat. I would find it extremely immoral if we killed sentient animals and not utilized as many body parts as we could like we do so today.Now I will examine Round three."My argument is that you don’t kill them to eat them because it should be considered morally wrong. Families that have been harvesting cattle for ages don’t have to give up their land, they just have to not kill animals in order to eat them."Like I stated earlier cattle would 1.Become overpopulated.2.Overgraze and die You seem to have a solution for that and I will examine it now. You stated, "The government of the country could help subsidies the cattle’s existence, and the cattle can be stopped from reproducing so that the problem does not become permanent." This sounds extremely immoral from my stance. Not being from a rural area you do not understand that a mass operation such as this would be extremely difficult. A cow is not going to stand still while it is made sterile. Take it from personal experience. My favorite part of the refutation to my statements is comparing raising cattle to slavery. It is stated here "In the past, people have been used as slaves for business. Would you honestly say that it would be wrong to stop slavery? No, because slavery is morally wrong. It doesn’t matter if it’s a tradition or if a great amount of money is being generated, the business should be considered immoral. It doesn’t even matter if the solution is highly costly or somewhat impractical, killing animals so that you can eat them still should be considered morally incorrect." This is how slavery and raising cattle is different. We do not make cattle do work, we feed them regularly and keep them healthy, move them to different areas so they do not overgraze. Cattle are not abused and they die peacefully. Where as in slavery, slaves were forced to do work, fed very little and were unhealthy. Therefore, we are comparing an apple to an orange.My opponent has constantly my statements do not support the moral part of this argument. I do not see how they have not. I have pointed out how it is immoral to take away what an entire family's life has revolved around for hundreds of years. I have also pointed out that it is immoral to simply keep cattle from reproducing. My opponent has failed to specify on many parts of my argument that I will quote now. These statements were otherwise ignore, unread or avoided.1. That I gave all possible scenarios not just for animals being shipped into the wild, I also gave examples of what would happen if they were taken care of.2. My opponent has also failed to address the face that even will government funding no amount of money will keep these cattle from overgrazing. Even if this would happen isn't our government in enough debt where as they shouldn't have to keep cattle alive with no benefit whatsoever to the American people or themselves. It sounds immoral to fund a cause with no return profit.3.My opponent has again failed to address how it is morally right to let an animal die painfully by natural causes instead of being kept in a safe environment and being peacefully killed when it reaches it's mature age.My opponent has also spoke of an alternative method to get protein called "In vitro meat." He has failed to cite any sources for this so called vitro meat so I will cite. This method also is extremely costly to produce and we won't see it for another decade. So how do we get our protein for an entire ten years while we raise cattle for no reason and get lacking funds from the government to sustain them. Although it is inevitable they will overgraze and have nothing left to eat. Which no amount of government funding can prevent. Cattle that starves to death sounds completely immoral. Also, if an animal dies we should harvest it's meat not let it rot on the ground. Also, cattle usually do not die of old age. When they die of natural causes often they are diseased. Making their meat unhealthy for consumers.ConclusionI have address my opponents arguments in this round and will extend my refutations to the next round. I have addressed the immoral part of the subject in which I have addressed how it is immoral to let cattle be killed by: starvation, predators and disease. Where they may be killed humanely without suffering. Where as my opponent's only argument is it doesn't matter about money or people's entire lifestyle. All that matters is suffering is bad. Even though livestock is killed peacefully.Sources:http://en.wikipedia.org...