Vegan Diets are Healthier

Con, being a much more experienced debater than I, has pointed out that the final round of a debate is properly used for summary and analysis. Though I was eager to debate further, and had promised to respond to a couple of things Con had pressed me on, I must decline out of respect for etiquette. I apologize for not structuring my arguments to fit within the first 4 rounds. Summary Beyond the Average Person Con argued that vegan and meat-based diets can both be equally healthy though vegan diets are beyond the average person. I gave scientific evidence proving that vegans (educated and not educated in nutrition) get enough protein and iron. In round 4, Con didn't respond to this evidence. He simply reiterates that average people can't reasonably be expected to plan a vegan diet to meet these needs. I also gave specific example showing B12 and omega-3s were easy to obtain on a vegan diet. His response to this was that vegans must seek out fortified foods (like soymilk) though he doesn't explain why this is any harder than non-vegans seeking animal milk fortified with omega-3s and/or vitamin D. Con quotes a source that said legumes, nuts and seeds don't contain B12 and omega-3s. However, I never said these were sources of B12. Also, this doesn't negate the fact that walnuts and flax seeds are recommended sources of omega-3[1][2]. It just says, in general that legume, nuts and seeds don't contain omega-3s (which is, for the most part, true). Con says that well planned vegan diets are beyond the capacity of average people. By not engaging my arguments on these nutrients adequately, Con shows that he cannot maintain this position under criticism. Furthermore, Con points to foods that have "hidden" animal products in them. He doesn't explain, however, why it would be beyond the average person to read nutrition labels and to eventually become cognizant of what foods have animal products. (Note: I was well prepared to argue against Con's points on vitamin D, calcium, zinc and iodine. However, these points weren't raised until round 4 where I was asked to not make any new arguments.) Longevity We've seen that the evidence suggests that vegans and meat eaters, on average, share similar mortality rates. Con points out that vegans tend to not smoke which skews the mortality findings in his favor. I pointed out that vegans, being on average untutored in dietary matters, likely do not obtain enough B12 and omega-3 fatty acids. This observation skews the results of the mortality study in my favor since a well planned vegan diet would ensure adequate amounts of these nutrients. The data collected so far on vegan mortality, though voluminous, is still considered inconclusive[3]. I think as far as mortality goes, Pro and Con will have to agree that all we can say for certain is that, on average, vegans and meat eaters share similar mortality rate. In round 1 I defined health in terms of both longevity and freedom from disease. We seem to be at a draw in terms of longevity, but what about freedom from disease. Disease I've used the very best science available to show that the consumption of meat, eggs and dairy is definitively linked to higher rates of cancer, diabetes, obesity and cardiovascular diseases. Likewise, I have shown that plant-based foods both actively and passively work to lower the risks of these diseases. Cancer, diabetes and cardiovascular diseases are among the leading causes of death (CVD ranks number 1). Given all this, can it be doubted that the vegan diet, as long as it is well planned, will be instrumental in reducing the rates of cancer, diabetes, and CVD. To agree with this is to affirm the resolution. 1 http://www.omega-3-for-your-health.com... 2 http://www.whfoods.com... 3 http://www.veganhealth.org... (conclusion)