It is morally wrong for humans to eat animals.

My opponent, Ben, has claimed that there was a study done by some people in which they found that trees can communicate with each other and defend themselves from insects. He then makes the controversial claim that because trees can perform these task, then so can other plants. Does he even demonstrate how he arrived at that conclusion? No, he doesn't, he just assumes it. Did he even link this study so I and others can read it and judge its validity? No. It's also unclear how this study is even relevant to our topic. He says plants can do certain task. OK. What's his point? However, I'm going to try and guess that he's trying to say that plants are sentient. I could be wrong about that, but that's all I can gather from what he's saying. Anyway, onwards with the discussion. Yes, plants may be able to do those things he mentioned, but that doesn't mean that their sentient, have conscious desires and other mental states, or preferences. In order for a being to be sentient, they must have a central nervous system, and possess a brain. If a being does not have a central nervous system and a brain, then it cannot be a sentient being. If being (X) has sentience, then that being has conscious desires, interest and preferences. However, if being (Y) does not have sentience, then it cannot have conscious desires, interest and preferences. So as I stated before in my first argument of the debate, if a being cannot have any conscious interest, then I fail to see how such a being could have any moral value. However, I'm not done yet. There is still more to be said on this issue of plants. Earlier, in round 2 of this debate, under The Killing Plants Objection, I argued that if we were concerned about plants, that we would destroy less plants if we ate them directly instead of feeding them to billions of land animals that we were going to kill for food. And that this means vegans kill less plants than the meat and dairy eaters do. So, overall, vegans cause the least amount of death, both animals and plants. Therefore Ben's arguments fail. Article on pain, showing that one needs a nervous system in order to experience it. http://www.nlm.nih.gov... I am going to quote what ben671176 said about producing crops: "The problem with only producing crops is that you overlooked something: Only 11% of earth's land is suitable to growing crops" - ben671176 You didn't provide a source to where you got this information, which makes me skeptical of your claim that only 11% of earth's land is suitable for growing crops. However, even if what you said was accurate, my argument still stands true. We would be able to feed more people on a vegan diet, than a meat and dairy diet. It takes more land, more water, and more plants to raise animals for food, than it does to grow crops for people to eat directly. For example, if we stopped feeding our grain to billions of land animals, the U.S. could feed 800 million people with that grain. According to Cornell Chronicle: http://www.news.cornell.edu... I didn't see Ben put forth a moral justification for our current system of modern animal agriculture. In fact, he didn't even respond to it. Nor did he respond to my ethical argument against eating animals. He also failed to address the environmental devastation that modern animal agriculture has on our planet. Ben also didn't respond to the problem of world hunger, and how eating meat and dairy has negative consequences for those who are starving in developing countries. Therefore my arguments covering these issues still stand tall, simply because he didn't even attempt to debunk them.