if you eat meat, you do not care about animals

Firstly, I want to remind the audience that my opponent bears a distinct burden of proof: show that people who eat meat do not care about animals.I have shown that I pray for dead animals I eat, which is clearly a sign of compassion.My opponent is thus already disproved.Now, for my opponent's false assumptions:A) that humans do not need to eat animals, using the word "essential".http://authoritynutrition.com...Vitamin B12 an ESSENTIAL nutrient, and cannot be found in plants in a sufficient amount. Some people claim that nori, Japanese seaweed, contains B12, but studies show that it is in a form that the human organism cannot process:http://www.veganhealth.org...This comes from a vegan site, notably.Hence, humans need to consume animals to survive.B) that it is a myth that we are constructed to digest meat.If B12 is essential for us and is found only in animals, it is proved that we are designed to process meat, otherwise we wouldn't rely on a B12 source to function.C) that humans are herbivorous longer than carnivorous.Show me a single bit of evidence for this, if you please.The evidence I have presented shows homo sapiens requires B12 from animals, making them omnivorous.D) raising the question why "one" continues to fund an industry that slaughters animals.Off-topic. Since we NEED to eat meat and all products deserve to be paid for, this question adds nothing to the topic.Besides, where is the proof that no member of this industry is a vegetarian? In fact:http://www.npr.org...This is the story of one former vegan who trained to become a butcher, for ethical reasons.Who says, then, that only "carnivores" support this industry at all?E) that animals do not enjoy dying.Straw man argument, that one. I never said they enjoy it. I said they are aware that they are mortal.Calling on evidence for my statement is rich, coming from a person who does not present any evidence whatsoever.But here's my evidence, anyway:"... higher animals also possess abstract awareness of death. Whether it is really so, has not been proved yet, but there are numerous documented examples that allow to presume this. The mourning of wolves, but also elephants, dolphins and several spe-cies of apes after their loss of a partner is generally known." from: http://www.folklore.ee...So, the claim that there isn't "any evidence" is obviously wrong.F) that plants have no nervous systemYeah, no:"So the plants perform a sort of biological light computation, using information contained in the light to immunise themselves against diseases that are prevalent during that season. Professor Christine Foyer, a plant scientist from the University of Leeds, said the study "took our thinking one step forward"."Plants have to survive stresses, such as drought or cold, and live through it and keep growing," she told BBC News."This requires an appraisal of the situation and an appropriate response - that's a form of intelligence."from: http://www.bbc.co.uk...Research clearly indicates that there are signal transmission routes through plants, very much alike to even our own nervous system, down to the genetic code:"The idea that plants have nervous systems stems from several sources of information. First, plants have genes that are similar to those that specify components of animal nervous systems. Such components include receptors for glutamate, an amino acid that is one of the building blocks of proteins but that also functions as a neurotransmitter. Other components are neurotransmitter pathway activators, such as those known as G-box proteins, and a family of “14-3-3” proteins, which act to bind various signaling proteins. All these proteins have been observed in animals, in which they have been shown to have distinct roles in neural function. Yet they are also found in plants."http://www.naturalhistorymag.com...So, what we see here is exactly what I was referring to above: my opponent BELIEVES plants don't have nervous systems, and thus assumes this to be true. And as we see, my opponent may be totally wrong about this. While demanding proof and evidence, my opponent disregards the need for such totally when it comes to their own argumentation.As for the sentience of plants: again, this was long believed of animals, too. Turns out, they are sentient. Where's my opponent's proof for their bold statement that PLANTS are not?Apparently, there's a system in plants akin to a nervous system, and they show even signs of intelligence (see above). So, intelligence without sentience? In that case, maybe animals have the same condition? We don't know enough to assert there's a difference. What we do know is that eating meat is essential for us, so it's not evil to do so, lest we should be condemned for breathing away the air from animals.G) that it is a myth that animals live in good conditions before slaughter.Yes, many animals suffer. Which is why I pointed out that I pick the source of my meat with great care, from local organic farmers who treat their animals well.Which again gets to show that I genuinely care for animals, as does the farmer, while all of us eat meat. It's just that we realize that these animals, after a decent life, can serve as a source for vital nutrients for us and our children without us being cruel about it.See an example:http://www.pratherranch.com...Let's compare to wildlife: out in the cold, constantly in danger of being torn to pieces while fully awake and alive by a pack of predators like wolves or lions, or a bear. Starving in hot summers. Sometimes dying of thirst during long treks through desert to the next pasture. An animal life isn't fun and games, even in the wild.H) that killing an animal for food may be compared to murdering a child:The "appeal to the extreme"-fallacy.There is no need to kill ten year old children. Eating them would probably cause diseases, as cannibalism often does. And they pose no threat for our lives. Hence, by the definition I provided above, this is an unfitting comparison of no value."One may care for human ethics, but one cannot truly care about the well being of animals, whilst feeling no guilt for consuming them."Which is a full concession of this debate. This says that indeed anyone who feels guilt for consuming animals is living proof that your resolution is wrong.And here's that proof:http://www.xojane.com...This is a confession of a vegan who due to malnourishment HAS to eat meat, and calls herself a "guilty carnivore".So, by your own standards, here you have a meat-eater who feels guilty, because she cares for animals deeply.Face it, the only thing we're debating here is your prejudice. This debate is basically done and over.You have not provided any proof for your allegations. You made wrong assumptions. You claimed there were no caring meat-eaters. Yet here I am.Then you switched to "guilty", and I've offered an example for that, too.You can try to post-hoc your way out of this, but I've met and proved all of your criteria already.