Meat production should be significantly reduced

It has been superb. Pleasantries aside, I submit my final argument against the reduction of the production of meat: 1. While I am fully aware that the resolution was that "meat production should be significantly reduced" and not that "meat production for human use should be significantly reduced," my opponent's rationale for reducing meat production came in the form of three arguments, spanning two objectives: the improvement of human health and the improvement of the environment. My opponent, as the Pro side of this debate, has the burden of showing that the objective related benefits obtained by implementing the resolution would outweigh any negative impact of its implementation, and that there is no more effective method of meeting the goals of these objectives. I have no affirmative burden as Con to prove up consumption, and may limit the discussion to human consumption if that is an area where I find weakness in the resolution. There is no need to "inform" my opponent of anything. He must deal with any argument that can be reasonably made before he can expect his resolution to be implemented. I this case, I chose to use consumption as a better alternative, and focused on reducing human consumption in particular to meet the first objective relating to human health. Therefore my opponent's argument that I do not meet a broad enough definition of consumption in the scope of my counter-argument is irrelevant. While I am trying to prove that we should dissuade consumption, I do not need to do so to win this debate. I merely need to show a weakness in my opponent's resolution, which I do by limiting the scope of my argument to the more discrete act of human consumption. If my opponent would like to get very picky, I mean human personal and commercial consumption for human ingestion (lest any argue that my definition cover the use of raw meat as a bodily salve, toy, or artistic medium). I do this to refute my opponent's contention that reduced production is necessary to alleviate health issues derived from the consumption of meat. My opponent does not debate that the reduction of consumption would not meet this end because he can not. My opponent's argument is therefore refuted. Note also that my opponent did not define meat production. Therefore, I must interpret it as all meat production, of which that used to meet human consumption for ingestion is only one part (although a significant one). Additionally, while I did not define consumption as human consumption for purposes of ingestion in my debate, I also did not argue for the elimination of consumption, but rather a reduction in it. Because human consumption for purposes of ingestion is a large subset of overall consumption, a reduction in it (as a subset) amounts to reduction in the super set that is consumption. Adaptation of production would occur, in the scope of my argument, to encourage the other or alternative methods of consumption, thereby returning the super set, and as a consequence, demand, to its original size. My opponent's argument that I can not argue for a reduction in human consumption for ingestion, and thereby consumption, while arguing that consumption can remain large enough to keep demand the same is therefore shown to be inaccurate, in that demand can temporarily decrease until new markets are found to increase consumption and thereby demand. This could result in temporary job displacement, but compare this to my opponent's resolution, which would reduce meat production, I would assume indefinitely from the resolution and argument made thus far, resulting in permanent job loss. My opponent therefore does not prove that his approach would be more beneficial in relation to the objective of improving human health, because the cost would be a greater increase in unemployment over a longer period of time and there exists a better way to accomplish the same end, namely encouraging reduced consumption (by humans, directly, for ingestion). 2. I did not "switch tactics" when I proposed that my opponent had made an argument lending itself to support meat production, in that I was not advocating for an increase in meat consumption. Rather I was arguing against my opponent's contention that a reduction in meat production would not affect poor people adversely because they would not eat much meat anyway. Once again my opponent mistakes the aim of this debate. I do not need to positively resolve to anything; my opponent bears the burden of proving that the implementation of his resolution would have more of a positive impact than a negative one. This argument was not to suggest that I suddenly found the idea of meat consumption valid, but rather that his own argument in regards to consumption rates relative to a reduced supply was invalid. Which it was and remains. 3. Finally my opponent argues that the environmental impact of meat production as it stands right now is too great to be allowed to continue, and that all of the alternatives I have provided are insufficient to meet the concerns generated by the industry, namely "18% of the world's total greenhouse gas emissions. " Debating this theoretically would take me forever, and I am low on space, so I will merely cite every source I can find disagreeing with Pro's analysis. It should be painfully obvious, however, how growing meat in a vat would reduce greenhouse gases resulting from "clearing forested land, making and transporting fertilizer, burning fossil fuels in agricultural machinery, and the front and rear end emissions of cattle and sheep. " If my opponent argues that the food would cost more, well, that just reduces consumption, doesn't it? At least, until better technology comes along and makes it available to all. For support for in vitro meat growth see: . http://www.newsdesk.umd.edu... , . http://www.slate.com... , . http://www.vatfood.com... , . http://www.theecologist.org... . Please note that even PETA is getting behind this. That's right, PETA wants you to eat meat (at least, this meat)! Keep in mind that reduction of meat production would result in a massive job loss. I'm convinced that allowing this technology time to develop will help naturally streamline the meat production industry into a productive, employee and environmentally friendly future. It is now up to you to decide how we will proceed, dear voters. On the one hand is the call for the authoritarian hand of the zealot to slam down on the stop production button in the interests of human health and environmental welfare. On the other is the call for the liberal application of human reason to advance meat production so that the danger to the environment is reduced, and for the appreciation of personal autonomy, for others to choose to limit their own consumption of meat, or not, as they decide for their own health. A little patience is all we need to see a better, brighter future through. So for our jobs, and our future, for our environment and human welfare, and out of respect for the personal choices of others, I urge you to vote against the resolution that meat production should be significantly reduced. Like Heinz ketchup on a hamburger, it's worth the wait.