Vegetarianism is wrong. Eating meat is the way to live.

As the final round I will simply use this to refute your arguments and summarize. You start out by attacking my phrase, "First off I am attacking your rationale that leads you away from eating human meat." I realize what my second round said however once again I wasn't attacking the idea that we shouldn't eat other humans I was attacking the idea of a predetermined food chain. Then you once again discredit my ideas by saying -while this could work in a hypothetical world but not in this world as dogs do not eat vegetables-. However I would once again like to point out that species change over time and not all of the precursors of dogs ate meat. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to prove that dogs have always ate meat. Then you tell me that evolution doesn't occur by choice. I agree, I wasn't saying it was. I was saying we can choose our own food chain, and if we didn't eat meat, then us having canines would become useless and babies would slowly begin to evolve accordingly. Next you bring the jellyfish argument back into this by telling me that their is no evidence jellyfish are adapting towards eating kelp. First and foremost the jellyfish point is entirely irrelevant, we're talking about humans here, not jellyfish. Secondly, there is no evidence, but there is no evidence on the contrary either. Thus perhaps we can assume that the jellyfish is content with how easy it is to catch its current prey. and then on my second point: "On the second point, the claim that they may not have realized any other food source refutes YOUR arguments and not mine. If any animal realizes only one food source, then it cannot possibly choose its own food chain as you claim. This is a huge inconsistency in your arguments." >>It doesn't refute my argument at all. And is especially doesn't refute the human argument seeing as we realize multiple food sources. Just because an animal doesn't realize it has another food source doesn't prove that it has a pre-determined food source. Next on my three points. The first one was simply that we can choose our own food chain, I have already covered that. Second: "Your second point was "2. Killing animals kills potential intelligence." Reread my post in Round 4. I've already shown that killing one individual of a species does not stop the evolution of that species." >>And I've already shown you how killing one individual could potentially stop a gene from being added to the gene pool. However your point once again doesn't prove mine as we as humans kill not one but multiple individuals everyday. How many cows are slaughtered every day? Deer? Sheep? Onto my third point. Which could have been better stated as "all animals are equal" considering that is what we are arguing about. You have this to say. "The third point was "3. All life is equal. Murder is immoral." The first point of "All life is equal" provokes my curiosity. I wonder what it is that you eat to sustain yourself if not some lifeform. You are truly a miraculous being if you are able to survive on inanimate objects. On the second half stating "Murder is immoral," it comes down to your views versus mine. To demonize eating all meat and claiming that it is all a form of murder is a very extreme point of view. Such extremes on almost any issue are usually wrong and oftentimes dangerous. Eating meat is not murder. It is simply nature. Despite your view when you claim "I do not believe it is any more moral for the lion to kill the zebra than it [is] for us to kill any other species," nature itself is not immoral. Life feeds on life, and in many ecosystems, predators are necessary to keep other animal populations in check." >>So no, I don't consider all life to be equal. I do not consider plants to be the same as other forms of life. However even if I did you don't actually disprove my point all you do is attempt to call me a hypocrite. On the second half of that you once again don't bother refuting my point, you even agreed that murder is immoral. Then you have this: "In fact, you spent a ridiculous amount of time on that one argument. And now, in one fell swoop, you wish to separate humans from the rest of the animal kingdom. This is inconsistent to say the least." >> Thus claiming that I am making the point that we are different than animals. I do make this point, but I would also like to make the point that every species is different. This does not mean lesser or greater. Finally to once again refute your rape point I would like to point out that I was using that point simply to prove that we don't act solely on impulse. Once again if you could prove to me that every other species did do this I can still prove that we don't. Thus we still have the choice to pick our own food chain. Your challenge to me was to present you with reasons, which I did, three. Thus I can only see where all three stand but especially the second one as you do not refute this at all. Killing animals decreases their chances of evolving, you attempt to argue that killing one animal does not. Even if the voters would like to buy this argument I would like to point out that we kill many thousands of animals a day. Thanks.