Eating vegan is better for the enviorment than omnivoire.

RebuttalsOpponent's argument is in bold and italics mine are in plain text."I think I should start off by saying what I am arguing against. According to Merriam-Webster, vegan is defined as: a person who does not eat any food that comes from animals and who often also does not use animal products (such as leather).So pro has the burden of proof to prove that not eating meat at all, or even using any animal products for any means is inherently better for the environment. " Delta2401Considering the topic about eating vegan the parts about leather should be dropped. You are not seriously comparing eating leather shoes to vegan shoes are you? More importantly the topic is about comparing omnivore as in meat eater to vegan. So the shoes would have to be made out of meat to be relevant. "an animal that eats both plants and other animals" [10]Reforestation has its own problems. [11] Mainly, that fast growing exotic trees only solve some problems while creating others. Many trees that are cut down are very old and will take a very long time to replace with a tree of the same age. Also, the species gone extinct from the origin deforestation are more or less lost forever. "Grain stores for cowsPro made bad comparison to grain enough to feed 9 billion people. The number isn't relevant if it can be done sustainably, and it wasn't linked to an actual finite number of how much we can support." Delta2401The exact quote is within the documentary. Considering there is 30 million or so cattle slaughtered each year. [12] Also, over one billion cattle in the world. [13]. This figure sounds right. Think about one billion cattle requiring 16x the grain is sixteen billion people that could be fed on this grain. "But I want to go beyond just that. Can 9 million people really live off that grain alone? The problem with the comparison is that to live the vegan lifestyle, grain would not give you near enough protein, etc for that. You need a wide variety of fruits and vegetables to get the nutrients you need to live off of. So no, 9 billion people could not live off that. It could certainly help give 9 billion people a staple meal in the world, but they would still be malnourished." Delta2401Nine billion, not nine million people. Protein would probably be the least of concerns considering humans only need about 10% calories from protein. [14] I would never recommend a diet of all grains, but its still better than starving. Malnutrition is better than famine. Considering children still starve to death, the first priority is amble food then nutrition. [15][16]."Water SuppliesPro has also stated we cannot support the plants we need to also support a meat industry. This is under the faulty assumption we can't fix our water issue seperately. For instance, Israel, someone who exports massive amounts of produce to places like europe and Russia[5], gets a huge amount of water from the mediterranean, and is a pioneer in desalination plants [6]. They use drip methods to give just the right amount of water to their farm plants, without being wasteful[7].If the proper motivation and funding went into forging sustainable water supplies for the world, we have so much water in the world where we can more than sustain everyone many times over. This is a case of mismanagement and going full steam ahead, but not something that cannot be addressed for the population who may want to eat meat, and have enough water supplies in the future." DeltaDesalination via reverse osmosis is resource intensive. A desalination plant takes resources to build in the first place $500 million a for the one mentioned. Not all farms are located near an ocean. You still have to transport the water. Finally, the water in the ocean serves to regulate the Earth's temperature. While we have a massive amount of water in the ocean, the resource is ultimately finite. "Cattle/Grain EffiencyThis is an irrelevant thing to add to the discussion when we have clear up the idea of space (more on that later), and water. Because then it just doesn't matter as much. When you address those sustainably, you can then sustainably increase it to whatever levels you want to feed your cattle sustainably..." DeltaI think my opponent meant to finish this later, for now its non-sequitur. I am running out of characters so I will stop quoting my opponent. Aquaponics is vastly different than our current farming systems. Your warrant doesn't back up your statement enough. There is not enough information on aquaponics to make a determination either way.Deer can be trapped, neutered, and released as opposed to hunted down. I don't know about you, but I don't want a hunter shooting deer in the middle of a city.Summary of rebuttalsMy opponent made some interesting ideas. Many of them which would be a drastic overhaul to the entire system of agriculture. The expensive desalination plants are a prime example. We already grow vegan products. Furthermore, my opponent hasn't really proved that any of these methods are more environmentally friendly than vegan. Therefore, my opponent is comparing experimental and prototype methods using state of the art technology that at best may have equal environmental damage to vegan. Vegan on the other hand we know is environmentally friendly. My opponent has conceded much ground by not defending factory farming. Thus, all that is left is the tried and true method of veganism versus new omnivore techniques that may or may not produce the results they claim. Thanks for reading and debating. Sources.10. http://www.merriam-webster.com...11. http://science.howstuffworks.com...12. http://www.humanesociety.org...13. http://www.statista.com...14. http://www.webmd.com...15. http://www.statisticbrain.com...16. http://www.animalliberationfront.com...