To be suggested by the contender

Henceforth, a vegetarian diet including moderate amounts of lean meat and fish shall be known as "the modified diet". "My opponent stated that vegetarians have "a certain dietary control in GENERAL that leads to these health benefits." Therefore, it is a logical connection to link vegetarianism with the said health benefits. " Yes, however, this does not eliminate the possibility that my modified diet plan is any inferior, as it is ALSO a form of dietary control. "Obviously, vegetarians do have significant dietary control, it is their diet that leads to the health benefits. I'm not entirely sure why that is a logical fallacy." It is a logical fallacy because my opponent has provided no proof that a pure vegetarian diet is superior to one equally rigorous but including fish and lean meat. My opponent then attempts to show that meat, even fish and lean meat, are harmful. The first piece of evidence is logically fallacious. My opponent compares the average american diet "high in meat, saturated fat, and low in fruits" with the vegetarian diet. This point can be totally ignored because it does not compare with my suggestion of the modified diet. My opponent's second point attacks the consumption of chicken. However, the statistic also runs on the average American family, and not the modified diet I proposed. This is yet another attempt at bending statistics and relying on deception to sway voters. "Also, the American Heart Association would not recommend a limit for something they found to be inherently good. As you can see, the average American already well exceeds the recommended limit. Undoubtedly, they would exceed it significantly more if they were to cut out all none-lean meat from their diet." This is incorrect. Everyone knows that too much of a good thing may harm you, excessive ANYTHING is harmful. The logical fallacy in my opponent's argument is "either it is all good, or it is all bad" and this is called the FALSE DICHOTOMY FALLACY. In addition, my opponent admits that the study only shows that we should cut all non-lean meat. This point can be ignored because it has nothing to do with my modified diet. My opponent brings up another point about how eggs and low-fat dairy products can be nutritionally adequate as a replacement to meat. My opponent's evidence is an alleged study on diets high in animal protein. Yet again, this is more deception, as it has NOTHING to do with my modified diet, which includes but has a far below average level of animal protein. My opponent has not shown that all meat is inherently bad, and should be completely cut. My modified diet allows for eggs, fairy products, lean meat, and fish, offering a much wider variety at identical health benefits with moderation as its key focus. Thus, my opponent's point can also be ignored here. "Apparently, my opponent thinks that taking a dietary supplement is an extreme. They chose to bring in the fact that they are a biomedical student, so I will bring in my own personal fact. I am, in fact, a vegetarian. And I am, in fact, incredibly healthy. And I do, indeed, take a nutritional supplement. It is not at all a hassle, nor an extreme of any sort. A simple multivitamin can make up for any nutritional benefits of meat, while ensuring that you do not experience any of the negative effects of meat consumption." I chose to mention that I am a biomedical student in order to bring credibility to a stipulated fact. My opponent's status as a healthy vegetarian means little to nothing. I know quite a few sickly vegetarians and I know some very robust and healthy people who eat massive amounts of meat. In addition, if my opponent has never tried my modified diet, then there is no need to bring up personal diet choice. In addition, it is not a proven fact that meat consumption in and of itself has any negative effects. Rather, all my opponent's points, all my opponent's evidence shows that EXCESSIVE meat consumption is bad. There have been no references at all to my modified diet. "My opponent suggests that their proposal would encourage the meat industry to process healthier meats. Simply because they are processing healthier meat, does not mean that they would produce any less CO2. The meat industry would continue to produce the same amount of carbon whether they're processing healthy or unhealthy meat." My opponent has misjudged my argument. I am saying that since the demand for meat will decrease, there will be less factories in general. "The fattening up of the animals does not contribute significantly to carbon emissions." I made this point to emphasize a future with healthier meat, not to emphasize lower carbon emissions. "Also, my opponent states that their proposal would increase the fishing industry to satisfy the higher demand for fish. Apparently my opponent is unaware that, at our current rate, the oceans will be depleted by 2025. An increase in fishing would accelerate this process and destroy ocean ecosystems. As a clearly intelligent person, my opponent should understand the delicacy of Earth's equilibrium, which has already been devastated by massive amounts of CO2 and depletion of wildlife. The sudden loss of an entire ecosystem would send countless natural cycles into turmoil. Not to mention that when the fish were gone, people would rely even more heavily on lean meat; therefore, making the meat industry expand and expel even more pollution." I retract my statement, because the conversion to this diet would not increase meat consumption or fish consumption. In fact, it would DECREASE fish consumption and meat consumption. I apologize for my mistake. Switching to my proposed modified diet would reduce consumption of both by a significant amount and would increase greatly the average consumption of vegetables and fruits. Thus, I thank my opponent for another point of benefit to my proposed modified diet. **** To summarize, my opponent has been trying to attack meat and say that it has inherent health detriments. I have knocked away each and every statistic as flawed. My opponent attempts to decieve voters by showing statistics for EXCESSIVE meat consumption against a PURE VEGETARIAN DIET. However, my modified diet is extremely low in meat, containing only fish and lean meats. Thus, none of my opponent's statistics this round hold any weight in this debate whatsoever. In addition, my modified diet, if accepted, would not shut down the fishing industry or the meat industry like my opponent's vegetarian diet would. In fact, it would greatly reduce both industries while raising the average consumption of vegetables and fruits. My opponent obviously has some sort of bias towards meat outside the realm of health. My opponent has no standing reason to propose that a diet with NO meat is inherently better than the exact same diet with a LITTLE bit of meat. Unless my opponent can find significant proof that even the slightest amount of meat can be detrimental to health, I can say that my modified diet allows for greater variety with all the health benefits, and thus, is superior to a pure vegetarian diet.