To be suggested by the contender

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. 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. My opponent then suggested the argument of including lean white meat and fish. Certainly, this is a better option than continuing to eat fatty meats; however, for the benefits to be received in full, you must practice a pure vegetarian diet. Not only this, even lean meat and fish have significant health threats. According to the Department of International Health, "The US population typically consumes diets high in meat and saturated fat and low in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. This dietary pattern increases the risk for heart disease, certain types of cancer, stroke and diabetes- four of the leading causes of death in the USA. The costs due to poor diet for just these four diseases are estimated to exceed $33 billion per annum. On the other hand, high intakes of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains and 'Mediterranean' dietary patterns, typically high in plant-based foods and unsaturated fats, lower the incidence of chronic diseases and their risk factors, including body mass index and obesity." Now, I don't mean to repeat myself, but combine those facts with the following: According to the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, "Demand for meat in the USA continues to grow, particularly for poultry. The American Heart Association recommends an upper limit of 138 lb of lean meat per person each year, more than 80 lb less than the current average US consumption of 222 lb. Americans consume about 10 billion animals each year, not including fish, averaging, for a family of four, 120 chickens, four pigs and one cow." As we can see from these statistics, the average American family eats significantly more chicken, which is considered to be lean meat, than red meat every year. However, they are still experiencing the health problems associated with meat; certainly, not all heart disease can be attributed to the single cow. As the demand for poultry rises, it is clear that more people are being swept up in the "lean meat" trend, but the health problems are not decreasing due to their change in diet. 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. In addition, the Center for a Livable Future blatantly states, "Meat is not a necessary component of a well-planned diet. Ovo-lacto vegetarian diets that include eggs and low-fat dairy products can easily be nutritionally adequate. Studies suggest that diets high in animal protein, regardless of fat content, increase the risk of cardiovascular mortality." This statement out rules my opponent's claim that it is fat alone that causes poor health, as well as their claim that a vegetarian diet is not nutritionally adequate. My opponent's final statement for this first argument was, "So including just a little bit of lean meat in the diet can make up for whatever extremes you need to go through in order to get those nutrients from a vegetarian diet." 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. 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. The fattening up of the animals does not contribute significantly to 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. A purely vegetarian diet has resounding health benefits, while even a diet including only lean meat and fish can be threatening to ones health. No essential nutrition is lost through a vegetarian diet that cannot be regained through a multivitamin. My opponent's proposal would not, as they said, "be better." It would cause over fishing to escalate, and would not encourage the meat industry to pursue more environmentally sound alternatives. A purely vegetarian diet is the only way to receive the health benefits and protect the environment by reducing fishing and pollution.