Every adult in first world countries should be vegan.

Rebuttal, I will go line by line and rebut my opponent's arguments. My opponent's arguments will be in bold and italics, mine will be plain text. "Con thesis: The pro thesis is absolutist and not every adult living in a first world country should be Vegan." marymcnamaraFirst, as in my round one argument there is some exceptions rare medical conditions, extraordinary circumstances, and lab grown meat. [0] Second, when it comes to justice, an absolutist attitude is often best. "2. An absolute doctrine, principle, or standard." [5] We should use an absolute standard or principle. Animal cruelty is never justified. I stand firmly behind my absolute principle of abolishing all forms of animal cruelty. "Claim: The meat industry is extremely valuable to the world's economy" marymcnamara"Impact: Following the warrant, eliminating the meat industry is not economically viable and would result in severe economic consequences." marymcnamaraAgreed with claim and warrant, disagree with impact. You assume everyone would simply become vegan overnight. This is highly improbable. People are resistant to change. Instead, I find it much more probable that slowly more and more people would become vegan until meat eaters were in the minority. At that point a law would most likely be passed outlawing meat production. Due to the mostly gradual change people would simply change vocations. There is no shortage of help wanted signs in my area. Justice is a higher priority than economy. "Claim: Humanity in present day could not survive a worldwide vegetarian/vegan diet" marymcnamara"Impact: An unsustainable food/vegan farming system to replace the old one. No change in sustainability." marymcnamara Your claim and impact don't match. You claim we couldn't survive on a worldwide vegetarian diet, give a long quote and then use a completely different impact. As for the warrant, which I didn't copy and paste due to character length restrictions, there is a lot of factors to take in. Overall, plant based diets win enviormentally. [6][7][8]"Claim: Developing Countries rates of meat consumption are rapidly rising" marymcnamara"Impact: there are multiple warrants within this argument and therefore multiple impacts. The first is that developing countries have seen a major rise in meat production and will therefore offset benefits to eliminating meat industries in the united states. The second is that farmers in developing countries continue to produce more without regards to the environment and health, leaving countries that have eliminated the meat industry unable to help them for moral and political reasons. On the flip side, if they did help developing countries eliminate their meat industries, the global economy would be tanked (no warrant, see first claim). The third warrant is that the meat industries in these countries will continue to grow despite drawbacks, meaning developing countries then have a moral obligation to assist them in order to preserve their populations and the environment, which turns the pro impacts." marymcnamaraThe claim is correct, yet this is about 1st world countries. I take issue with the impact again. "The first is that developing countries have seen a major rise in meat production and will therefore offset benefits to eliminating meat industries in the united states. " marymcnamaraEliminating injustices in the 1st world helps justice overall. The fact that meat production in developing countries will cause environmental damage is irrelevant to this debate. You seem to be making an argument that the entire world should become vegan, which would include first world countries, if so you are agreeing with me."The second is that farmers in developing countries continue to produce more without regards to the environment and health, leaving countries that have eliminated the meat industry unable to help them for moral and political reasons." marymcnamaraYou make an argument that the entire world should become vegan, thus agreeing with me. "On the flip side, if they did help developing countries eliminate their meat industries, the global economy would be tanked (no warrant, see first claim). " marymcnamaraAgain, gradual change as seen with my rebuttal to your first claim." The third warrant is that the meat industries in these countries will continue to grow despite drawbacks, meaning developing countries then have a moral obligation to assist them in order to preserve their populations and the environment, which turns the pro impacts." marymcnamaraAn argument for everyone to become vegan. "Ethics-Rights are unique to human beingsrights only have meaning within a moral communityonly human beings live in a moral communityadult mammals don't understand or practice living according to a moral codethe differences in the way human beings and adult mammals experience the world are morally relevanttherefore rights is a uniquely human concept and only applies to human beings (4)" marymcnamaraAnimals already have some rights. There are plenty of anti-animal cruelty laws. See what happens if you commit one of these acts in public. This argument also falls apart when dealing with the mentally challenged. An insane person can't be accountable for his or her actions, yet also has certain rights. Animals are sentient and can feel pain. "AND No impact to ethics, it's mere philosophical speculationArbitrary Lines-concede this claim, it has no link to the argument, neither King nor Dawkins practiced veganism and are not credible sources. The evidence was shifted to try to favor pro's argument and should therefore be dropped in the debate." MaryYou are the one with philosophical speculation. How are MLK and Dawkins not credible sources? Just because someone isn't vegan, doesn't discredit them intellectually. Also, are the authors of all the links you provided vegan? By your train of thought we should discredit them if they aren't. About 2000 characters left going to quote you less. "Humane Washing- http://www.qmscotland.co.uk...... This link gives multiple reasons as to why meat is good for humans, meaning that there is a reason behind killing animals (to eat) and is therefore not an "unnecessary harm"" MaryYes, meat can provide substance and is better than starving, yet we can receive all those nutrients on a vegan diet, especially with fortified foods and supplements. You seem to miss the entire point of humane washing. Animals are still often mistreated. There will always be the conflict of interest between animal welfare and the profit motive. There will always be studies that contradict each other. Yet, this is how science works. Some studies will find a strong correlation between cholesterol and heart disease and others will find none. Overwhelmingly the answer is becoming clear that vegetarians have an advantage over meat eaters. Remember the meat industry is huge and has lots of money to influence results. As for the environment see these links. [6][7][8] If you use pasture raise animals you need a lot of acreage thus deforestation. Factory farming requires massive amounts of water and grain. Fishing is incredibly destructive. Vegan is clearly the environmentally superior choice. Thanks for the debate I look forward to next round. Sources.5. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...6. http://www.greenpeace.org...7. http://www.earthsave.org...8. http://wwf.panda.org...