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

Rebuttals://While this is a true statement, it is not true for all peopleâ€¦it would be an exceptable way to have meat without supporting the meat industry.//This still does not make it all right. Yes, in these cases killing does not support the meat industry, it still leads to death of a sentient being for personal motives. The purpose of the premise 1 was to establish a link between the food and itâ€™s source. One of the most common fallacy while arguing for non vegetarians is that one tries to shrug off the responsibility of the death of the animal (which constitutes your diet) to the person who â€˜actually killed it.â€™ But by eating the meat, you are urging him to kill more animals, you are cementing his source of livelihood. He is killing the animals because you are eating them, thus a meat- eater has a definite, huge role in the death of the animal. When one supplies all of his meat through hunting, fishing, and growth of private livestock, it participates more directly in the killing of the animal. Which is again morally wrong according to premise 2. In fact, if there was a scale of morality, it is further down the wrong side.//Killing is not wrong depending on the circumstances.//Killing is always wrong. Regardless of the circumstances, the 'act' of killing is always wrong. However, given that we live in a society that does not require us to be perfectly moral all the time, and does accept some immorality as ˜the way of life'; if one is able to justify the killing a being, it is ˜socially acceptable". However, it still does not make it right. Or moral, for that matter. // It all depends on the reason for killing.//Exactly, your arguments calls for a distinction between moral and socially acceptable. Something which is socially acceptable is not necessarily moral. To take the second example, why is killing someone trying to kill you moral? What makes your life so much more valuable than the other person? Yes, it is legal, and yes, we are selfish beings and thus care about our lives much more than the life of a person ˜trying to kill us', but killing an immoral person is not moral. It is socially acceptable. Killing an animal for the sole purpose of eating it to satisfy your taste, causing pain, injury and death solely to bring a diversity to your diet is not moral. Religon: //We both claim to be religious. Religion is a big source for the foundation of morals. There are multiple accounts in the Bible where it is shown that eating animals is acceptable.//I am extremely sorry, but I have turned spiritual since joining this site 3 years ago. I apologize to my opponent for the confusion, and I should have changed my big issues and religion accordingly. Presently, I do not believe in deriving my morals from my religion. And believe that morals are best derived from the inherent sense of logic. However, I accept that my religion did have a huge role to play in â€˜making me a veganâ€™. Since I was a Hindu, (and am, for all purposes, except, you know, the actual â€˜literalâ€™ believing part) meat eating was not accepted in the house. Hence, Iâ€™m going to argue out this point as I would have three years ago. //Bible says you can eat meat. As previously stated, religion is a huge foundation for morals. //Hinduism and Budhdhism recommend not eating meat. In Jainism, vegetarianism is mandatory for everyone.The first precept in Buddhism is usually translated as: I undertake the precept to refrain from taking life. [1]Due to limiting word limit, I can't paste the entire paragraph. [4] Pg 238, line 19. //I'm sorry, but I don't know the hindu equivalent of the Bible. Could you tell me what it is so I can search for examples from it as well?//Hinduism has two epics: Ramayana and Mahabharata which are historical in nature, and claim to document the time when the gods actually walked on Earth. However, the diet in Hinduism is said to be governed by Dharmaï¿½stras.// Also, the eaters of the meat aren't necessarily the morally wrong people. The producers are. //I touched upon this in the first rebuttal. Just because a person does not contemplate, does not imply that it is not true. Or that he can shrug his responsibility from the act that was committed to bring the dish to his plate. To take an example, say in an community A, cannibalism is the way of life. Which is to mean that people love eating grilled human flesh. Owing to the demand in the community, businesses open up, and start killing humans and serving them hot. Are the People in Community A not responsible for the slaughter of the humans? Just because they didnâ€™t kill the person does not imply that they can shrug their responsibility. Because IF they didnâ€™t demand the human flesh, humans would not have been killed. Thus although the crazy greedy businesses do not, by any chance, rate high on the moral compass; by proving the much needed demand to keep the businesses open, and hence continue the slaughter of humans, the people of community A also slip down the moral scale. // Revise the system in which the animals are raised so that they have a quality life for however long it lasts.// This is again a very important point raised by the delegate. How can you ‘revise the system’? Which system is better than freedom? The quality of life is not judged by only adequate food and water, one wants freedom, choice, in it to make a person truly happy. If only food and water could make us happy, even a jailed life would be perfect, if we were given tasty food. And adequate water. If one is raised for the sole purpose of killing it once it reaches a certain age, the main aims of the system catering to it would be: to give it adequate food, adequate water, keep it healthy. That is not happiness. Or a ‘quality life’ by any chance. //Being A Vegan Is No Better Than Being a Non-Vegan When in Terms of Animal treatment// The key word here is ‘no better’. That is the word I’ll focus on. //There is little acknowledgment for the unseen death that comes with crop production. One case that was acknowledged is that of DDT...// DDT was banned, as you said, because of the environmental problems it posed. It was banned because people cared about the environment, because it was considered unacceptable to kill animals, plants, birds or any sentient human being. An action was taken. However, in the same vein, due to excessive demand for its meat, chimpanzees and gorillas are being hunted to extinction because of the high demand for bush meat.[3] Pangolin is another such family on the brink of extinction. The difference being, in the first case, people accepted their responsibility and worked to get rid of it. In the second case, people didn’t. Just because an animal is becoming extinct, why would eating it suddenly become immoral. Immorality does not depend on time frame. //Even now, we continue to poison animals to protect our crops. Not just insects, but rats as well. [2]Another question, why is it acceptable to kill rodents in your house when it is unnaceptable to eat meat?// A true vegan does not support killing of animals. It is not acceptable to kill rodents in my house. And I’m sure a lot of houses, like mine, prefer catching the rodents in rattraps and releasing them into wild. // Finally, take into consideration the animals that can no longer survive when new farms are built and habitats are destroyed as a result.// Again, as an economy grows, the focus is more on improving the technology as compared to the actual area farmed. Again, the difference is the approach. A vegan understands that the activities it takes part in might lead to death of individuals and tries to minimize it. A non vegetarian accepts it as the way of life, tries to shrug his responsibility. It is better to accept you are doing wrong and try to do something about it. It is morally superior. [1] http://tinyurl.com......; [2] http://tinyurl.com......; [3] http://tinyurl.com......; [4] http://tinyurl.com...... I await my opponents response.