Every adult in first world countries should be vegan.

I will go line by line for the rebuttal, then extend my first argument First my opponent gives a definition of absolutism but fails to explain why it is best for this round. Where's your warrant? Then my opponents assumes I think the meat industry would be eliminated overnight, however my supporting evidence is specific to things like GDP and why the vegetarian and vegan industry would NOT be able to replace it. You have to disprove this warrant in order to gain ground because if there is no other SUSTAINABLE alternative to food production in the status quo, adopting radical veganism does more harm than good. In counter to environmental claims, here is a good article about the misconceptions of meat industry environmental harms, and justification to its use in diets. https://www.theguardian.com... Then my opponent claims that meat would be outlawed when vegans were the majority. This is incorrect for several reasons. First, there are many real world examples of bad things that are in the minority and still legal such as cigarettes, dog meat, and duck meat. According to an article published in the last two years ( http://inhabitat.com... ) it is still legal in 6 states to eat cat and dog meat, meaning a federal ban of meat coming from cows and chickens is highly unlikely even in a pre dominantly vegan world. Then my opponent makes to claims 1) that my impact and warrant don't match. This is not true, the reason humanity could not survive a vegan diet in this example had nothing to do with the health debate but the sustainability debate which I can't seem to get my opponent to answer directly. This article is excellent on this debate (https://gpfarmblog.wordpress.com... ) and explains why things like the amount of healthy land able to be used is not sufficient and will not become sufficient, and all plant diet would use too much water to sustain the earth and itself, and many plants would not survive growing in industrial conditions which are the only conditions that would be able to produce enough in the first place. A worldwide vegan diet is unsustainable, end of story. Then my opponent says that the developing countries impact doesn't make sense and that I am agreeing the world should become vegan. These are both incorrect. First, the exclusion of second and third world countries from the pro contention means the pro can never solve which, on the most fundamental level possible, is the point I was trying to make. Second, I am saying that the entire world WOULD HAVE TO become vegan to make any real change, but not that it SHOULD. That is why I am Con in this debate. Then my opponent says their authors are credible and mine would have to be vegan to be credible. First of all your authors are not credible. You applied their philosophy to prove people should be vegan, but they themselves weren't meaning obviously they did not feel the need to apply there own philosophy in the way you are doing as the pro. Second, my authors would actually have to be meat eaters to be credible because a) most of them are writing from medical and moral standpoints and b) they must practice what they preach to be credible. Finally my opponent addresses humane washing. I'd like to start off answering this by offering this article : https://medium.com... (morality debate) . It gives empirical evidence as to how a vegan world would actually be a world more cruel to animals. The warrants are very long and I don't have enough characters to elaborate on them. I would also like to point out that my opponent has turned an argument they made on their own case into a reason to vote against them and that is this: logically, if meat is outlawed like a drug, prostitution, etc people would react violently and meat eating would become a violent merciless trade. Ever heard the expression "laws are meant to be broken" ? On to extensions: Extend all my health claims in round 1 including the counter claim I made at the very end. here are a couple of credible articles to contribute to the health debate: http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com... http://articles.mercola.com... (health factor) Next extend source 5 from the last round which disproves some environmental claims my opponent made and actually gives environmental incentive to keep the meat industry. Next extend my ethics argument. My opponent has failed to disprove that ethics are solely a human concept . This is critical for the debate because applying justice to animals serves no purpose if animals themselves cannot recognize it as justice. It is simply self serving for the pro. Next extend my economy argument at the top of my con case. Any risk of damaging the meat industry's GDP, even with gradual transition, means you vote neg because it is still the biggest impact in this round. Finally, and I'm only doing this because it has happened to me before, I'd like to clarify the next round is for rebuttals only. No new evidence should be submitted unless it follows a line of argumentation already established and does not make any new claims. If you accidentally make a new claim or something it should be disregarded but I won't be someone who claims to win the round because of it, since that does no good.