Eating vegan is better for the enviorment than omnivoire.

I will rebut my opponent point by point"I think you mistook my intentions. I was trying to point out that by proving the killing of any animal in this case for food is a good thing, either by hunting or otherwise. " Delta2401No idea what my opponent is stating here. I just assume this is a red herring."So, just like I mentioned myself, mismanagement? But are you saying a forest can't possibly be planted in a manner that includes older tree types, or other animals? Those 200 year old trees used to be 1 year old too. I do recommend you watch the documentary Dirt as talked about in my previous arguments. It does demonstrate a good way this can be done, in just about any climate." Delta2401A two hundred year old tree, took two hundred years to grow. We can't simply plant a saplings and have it grow 200 years over night. That's the problem with reforestation. Whee, lets knock down 1,000 two hundred year old trees, and replace them with 10,000 saplings. Look at us we are so great, now there are ten times as many trees in the area than before we worked. There is no way those saplings can keep the air clean as well as the old trees. Not only that but many of the saplings will die before reaching maximum growth. They will shade and root competition each other out. You ignored my argument about species becoming extinct from deforestation staying extinct. Finally, I don't have free access to watch the Dirt documentary so I have no idea if the claims you make about the documentary are valid or not. "Without that number,the 1 billion cattle to feed vs the people it can feed is just a number, and a comparison that doesn't prove that it is inheritantly better or worse for the environment. Because it doesn't prove whether or not it can be sustained without larger numbers of the environmental capacity by itself." Delta2401 We are already feeding the one billion cattle lots of grain. Of course, it would be better for the environment and we would have the capacity. There is no other conclusion. "Which humans? The average human doing average human activities? But what about those who want to be athletes or very fit/healthy people? " Delta2401 Malnutrition is better than starvation. "Not the point. The beef for instance would be much more fulfilling towards the nutrition, despite things like fat and other potential problems when too much is consumed, compared to grain." Delta2401 You need about 16x the grain to feed a cattle. Grain is more calorie dense than beef. [17][18] As you can see100g of corn has 365 calories and beef 145 calories. Meaning corn has over twice the calories per pound. Combine that with the 16x number and you can feed about 32 times the people on corn than on beef. "Are you saying the starving people in the world will be fed with grain if we switched to such a system, and thus there wouldn't be the famine in places like Africa? " Delta2401 It would have to help. I skipped some arguments because this is starting to drag on needs to end sometime. I don't see any serious threat to my argument in the parts I skip. "You are the instigator. You have the burden to prove that vegan is better for the enviroment than any non-vegan alternatives. I don't have to prove anything other than the fact that eating vegan is not necessarily better for the enviroment. I don't have to prove it is better at all." Delta2401 I proved vegan is better for the environment in round 1. I over killed my burden of proof in round 1. You haven't proven anything with aquaponics. You basically state you think aquaponics is good for the environment, but without proof. You brought up the issue you have to tell me why its relevant and provide evidence that it is important. I can't even find hardly any information on aquaponics. Let's put it another way. I over kill my burden of proof in round 1. You bring up aquaponics then demand I prove that vegan is better than aquaponics, a subject I know almost nothing about. This would be a completely unfair burden of proof on me to disprove every notion my opponent brings up, even if my opponent provides little to no evidence that notion is correct. "Not the point, and you are shifting the burden of proof." Delta2401 You seem to be using the burden of proof as an excuse not to argue points you brought up. If I did have the burden of proof, I would have to disprove every single method of meat production in existence. I simply wouldn't have enough characters to type all that in. Not only that, but I would have to be all-knowing to know every single meat production method that exists. This would present an impossible burden of proof for me. Conclusions, I met my burden of proof and then some in the first round. My opponent seems to be dragging this on without providing sufficient evidence to harm my claim. Thanks for the debate.Sources17. http://nutritiondata.self.com...18. http://nutritiondata.self.com...