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

Starting out, you refer briefly to the Couetzfeldt-Jakob syndrome. My only point in rementioning it was due to your statement "First off I am attacking your rationale that leads you away from eating human meat." It served to show that my rationale was valid, and those that must refresh themselves should reread the arguments. From here you seem to create your own theory of evolution. You insist "that every species can define its own food chain if it so wanted." But this is not how evolution operates. The rare exceptions where evolution does occur by choice (such as sympatric speciation) are few and far between. I do concede that IF all humans at the same time suddenly decided to eat other humans, a few may survive that would be resistant to prions. However, such ridiculous hypotheticals are not worthy of speculation and have no relevance to the way in which evolution operates in the real world. Similar speculations you've made, such as all dogs abstaining from meat, are equally irrelevant and have no bearing on the way in which evolution actually operates. In response to my example of the jellyfish, you ask if I deny such a creature any intelligence. While a jellyfish may have some intelligence, one must remember that this is a creature without a brain. To claim that it chooses a fish because it knows how its digestive system works is giving that jellyfish a lot more credit than it deserves. Furthermore, if both fish and kelp are to be considered prey for the jellyfish, I cannot consider the fish the "easiest prey." I have seen live fish and live kelp, and I assure you that the fish is the far more elusive of the two. Now in my argument, I gave several examples of animals that have evolved features clearly used to consume other animals. I then stated "After mentioning all of the adaptations that animals have developed to consume other animals, I cannot see how evolution can be used to support the claim that it is immoral for one animal species to consume another." Your entire response to this was as follows: "Just did, notice you didn't actually attack any of my points specifically. Extend." Before I expand my argument, something must be mentioned. Most of your specific points in the "murder" arguments are based on attacking the notion that humans are the greatest species. Since I do not contend that humans are better than every other species, many of your points are things I would not attack. If I share your belief that humans are not the greatest species, I will not debate you on this issue just for the sake of arguing. Now to expand on why I do not believe eating meat is immoral. Your first question in Round 2 was "Did we not evolve from less complex and less complex creatures, organisms, cells?" From there you infer that it is wrong to kill something less complex than us, as we may interfere with the evolution of a species by killing off one of those "less complex creatures, organisms, cells." To think that killing one of these less complex organisms for food is wrong, would imply that a large portion of the animal kingdom is immoral. The bear would be immoral every time it catches the salmon according to this logic. Some further examples: The lion would be immoral for killing the zebra, the meerkat would be immoral for killing the scorpion, and the shark would be immoral for killing the seal. Also if it is wrong to kill any less complex creature that we have evolved from, then I have one final question. Is your body committing an immoral act every time it uses the leukocytes of the immune system to kill off a bacterium? We evolved from those as well. But this isn't the only problem with your logic. As far as the evolution of species goes, one individual never makes a difference. Even when the genetic traits of that individual are superior to all of the others in that species, it still does not affect evolution. The trait becomes diluted and lost, and this is explained in The Origin of Species. Therefore our consumption of another species will not have a bearing on that species as a whole, regardless of that individual's potential. Furthermore, the struggle for life is most severe between species that are closely related (i.e. at the generic level or less). Since we are not closely related to the species we consume, we are not the cause of a severe struggle for life at this level. (* The terrible things we do to the environment with pollution, destruction of habitat, consumption of natural resources, etc. does not reflect on the above statement. We can still cause extinction or severe population drops by these means. But simple consumption only takes the role we would take in the ecosystem and cannot cause such horrible outcomes.) You've stated in Round 2 "What I'm suggesting is that you as a human belong to a larger group called 'life.'" I also believe this to be true. And as such, we should not distinguish ourselves by separating from the dynamic ecosystem by denying our omnivorous nature. This should be especially true when it comes to eating venison. With the consumption of venison, a slight reduction in the deer population can take place. In areas where the deer are overpopulated, this would be better for the environment as a whole. It is time to stop focusing on the individual animal and start seeing the bigger picture. Now I will refer back to your view on evolution, which you believe takes place by choice. I cannot reproduce here all of the evolutionary literature that I own to show that your views on evolution are wrong. Such a project would fill thousands of pages and besides the extreme time consumption, this site would not allow me to type that much. However, there is one point I can make to show at least one major flaw in your arguments. This evolution by choice that you've created does not account for instinct. Instinct is a major part of evolution and The Origin of Species devotes an entire chapter to the subject (Chapter 8). Some animals grab prey based solely on instinct. They are not making a conscious choice. They are not choosing their own food chain. I just wish to make that point. I don't want to continually debate you on the merits of your dreamed up version of evolution vs. the theory of natural selection. You will obviously feel that your version is right, and me and the rest of the scientific community will continue to stick with natural selection. You finally end by quoting my last statement from the last round and respond: "This interests me. Especially the fact that while you say all of this you give no advocacy for what you do believe. If you would like me to attack something then give it to me. Remember this quotation from your first speech? 'My challege is for someone to give me a logical reason to become a vegetarian. I, in turn, will review the reason and give a refutation.' These are my reasons based on what the average person seems to believe. If you want to hand me your own personal reason for not eating meat do so. I will continue this debate by attacking such." Well I will say this to you now. Not only do I remember that quotation, but furthermore, it states the basis and the terms for this debate. I will not cater to your desires to suddenly change the format or the subject of this debate mid-stream. If the best reason you can come up with to become a vegetarian is to claim that all other diets are murder, that is not my problem.