Vegetarianism is wrong. Eating meat is the way to live.

In your first paragraph, you state "No where in this have I attacked your claim that it would be bad for humans to eat humans (or squirrel brains)." In response to this, I will refer you to the beginning of your rebuttal in Round 2. This is a direct quote from you "First off I am attacking your rationale that leads you away from eating human meat." So whether or not you admit it, you have attacked this claim. You also claim that I concede you a small point in admitting that humans would become resistant to prions in the unlikely scenario of all humans suddenly deciding to feed on other humans. Perhaps this is true, but it misses the main point. Your unlikely scenarios of all humans becoming cannibals and all dogs eating nothing but plant life have no pertinence in the real world. At best, these arguments may speak in favour of vegetarianism in this hypothetical and unrealistic world (though even here, it may not be enough justification). We are living in the real world where hardly anyone practices anthropophagy, dogs are not herbivores, and most importantly EVOLUTION DOES NOT OCCUR BY CHOICE! Your fictional and hypothetical worlds support nothing. With the jellyfish example, I never asked "why wouldn't jellyfish eat Kelp since it is easier." I did make a very similar point, but you should refrain from using the quotation marks unless it is a true quote. Those that wish to reread the arguments can see that it was a refutation to your claim that jellyfish eat fish because they are the easier prey. You then state: "My logic would say that the jellyfish are either a. adapting towards kelp, before this point they had an even tougher prey than their current fish or b. Did not realize the kelp when first adapting, or considered it as a possibility." On the first point, there is absolutely ZERO evidence that jellyfish are adapting towards kelp. Predators do not evolve to eat easier and easier prey. They actually evolve further adaptations to catch prey that has evolved. I have already given an example of this with the snakes becoming more and more resistant to amphibian toxins. This is how a true predator/prey relationship evolves. The predators do not evolve to eventually eat plants. On the second point, the claim that they may not have realized any other food source refutes YOUR arguments and not mine. If any animal realizes only one food source, then it cannot possibly choose its own food chain as you claim. This is a huge inconsistency in your arguments. You then give three reasons for becoming a vegetarian. I will deal with each one in order. Point 1. "Humans don't naturally eat meat/can choose their own food chain." I will first point out that humans are omnivores and as such, humans DO naturally eat meat. Our digestive system was designed to digest both plant life and meat. True herbivores have systems different from ours. Their stomachs contain symbiotic microorganisms to help breakdown cellulose and obtain the maximum amount of nutrients from plants. For us, part of the health of plants is that we cannot break down cellulose, and this helps to clear our intestines. Despite the choices you've made, people are naturally omnivores. Also in the first point, you say we can choose our own food chain. In my previous arguments, I have already touched on this point. It is true that humans can choose to be vegetarians. But just because you have the ability to do something, it doesn't mean you should. There is no logic that states that the ability to perform an action should result in executing such action. Your second point was "2. Killing animals kills potential intelligence." Reread my post in Round 4. I've already shown that killing one individual of a species does not stop the evolution of that species. The third point was "3. All life is equal. Murder is immoral." The first point of "All life is equal" provokes my curiosity. I wonder what it is that you eat to sustain yourself if not some lifeform. You are truly a miraculous being if you are able to survive on inanimate objects. On the second half stating "Murder is immoral," it comes down to your views versus mine. To demonize eating all meat and claiming that it is all a form of murder is a very extreme point of view. Such extremes on almost any issue are usually wrong and oftentimes dangerous. Eating meat is not murder. It is simply nature. Despite your view when you claim "I do not believe it is any more moral for the lion to kill the zebra than it [is] for us to kill any other species," nature itself is not immoral. Life feeds on life, and in many ecosystems, predators are necessary to keep other animal populations in check. When you throw back to my mentioning your underhanded tactic, anyone that reads it can plainly see that I was not referring to your claim that meat is murder. It was in reference to all of the sentences in which you lead others to believe that I've made claims that I haven't. But this is off on a tangent. My claim is that following nature is not immoral. When I question your viewpoints on the morality of other animals, you say that it is immoral as well. But you also state "The difference between humans and those animals though is this website. We sit around and discuss whether the action is moral or not, and we can decide for ourselves." But this is something I find very strange. You now give us some element of being above eating meat because of the fact that we can discuss it. Yet in Round 2 you pontificated and elaborated ad nauseum that humans are not better than any other species. In fact, you spent a ridiculous amount of time on that one argument. And now, in one fell swoop, you wish to separate humans from the rest of the animal kingdom. This is inconsistent to say the least. When you claim that your body does in a way commit an immoral act for killing off an invading bacterium with its immune system, this takes your view to such a ridiculous extreme that I find it hard to give any credence to. To say that your immune system makes you "feel like a big parasite" has crossed the line into such a radical point of view, that I will not even bother to say anything against it. I will simply leave it to the readers. You then go back to the individual with a special gene that we may have killed. I already stated that this would not affect evolution, and I actually know about evolution. You say the the individual will add it to the gene pool, and can become diluted and resurface. This is simply not how it works. There are many individuals in a population, each with some variability. Those with better genes for the current environment are more likely to survive. It does not now, never has, and never will be the result of one individual. Furthermore, despite your claims, I do not prove any of your points. The fact that we are advanced enough to take whatever we want may be used in arguments against overfishing, destroying habitats, and putting species on the brink of extinction. However, it does not mean that we should not eat any meat. I continually refer to deer, because it is this animal that we can eat and actually help the environment by doing so. You state that we are not the sole predator of deer. If you look through the debate, you will see that I was actually the first to point this out in Round 2. Nevertheless, you say that it is better to just bring in wolves. Now, I agree that we should stop killing the wolves, and allow their numbers to regrow in these areas. But whenever a natural predator of a species disappears, that species can grow unchecked. Although humans would not disappear, it would virtually be that way if we all refrained from venison. As far as instincts, I don't condone rape because, as stated before, humans are a social species. Rape does not fit in well with social species or societies. I'd like to elaborate, but ran out of space.