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

Had to reread the entire debate. This is getting long. For starters you once again bring up the Couetzfeldt-Jakob syndrome, and I do not deny your logic behind this claim. However I was not attacking Humans eating other humans I was attacking your logic saying that every species has a naturally defined food chain. No where in this have I attacked your claim that it would be bad for humans to eat humans (or squirrel brains). However you did concede me a small point here when you said, "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." Next you bring back your jellyfish example asking, "why wouldn't jellyfish eat Kelp since it is easier". 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. Notice you said they are not very intelligent. Also this is where your human-prion argument comes back in. It would be bad for jellyfish right now to try to eat kelp because their current system could not digest such. However if their current prey went away they would be forced to adapt in the way you listed above (human-prion argument). Next you straw-man me by saying that you gave ways in which Animals evolved to eat specific types of animals and I didn't answer at all. Yet I did, I argued that choice precedes adaption. I am saying that creatures will adapt to survive in their environment. For instance if we had white and black butterflies and the butterflies hid on black trees, the black butterflies would survive as a whole. "For instance if dogs stopped eating meat it would be the dogs most adapted to eating plants that would evolve(survive)." Next you offer me this: "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." >>Yet you said in your first argument, "My challenge is for someone to give me a logical reason to become a vegetarian." This was one of the three reasons I offered you: 1. Humans don't naturally eat meat/can choose their own food chain. 2. Killing animals kills potential intelligence. 3. All life is equal. Murder is immoral. You spend your 3rd speech telling me that you never argued murder was not wrong and I was simply using an underhanded tactic. Then you say in your 4th speech, right above, "Since I do not contend that humans are better than every other species, many of your points are things I would not attack." Thus you concede my entire 3rd point. You don't argue that murder part. You don't argue the equal part. If you can't see humans as being better than other species how can you see humans murdering other species? Now you give me your rational for not believing eating meat is immoral, being: "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." >>And I agree, I do not believe it is any more moral for the lion to kill the zebra than it us for us to kill any other species. 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. Many of the species you mention are still just trying to survive. Then you say: "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." >>Yes in a way I would say it is, it makes me feel like a big parasite. However this is something that I can actively control, where as I can actively control what foods I eat from a day to day basis. Your point holds no bearing in this round. And then we have this point you make, which is what a lot of my argument has hinged around: "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 individual will add the gene to the gene pool. Even if it does become diluted it is in the gene pool and it has the potential to resurface. Then you prove my points from my 2nd speech by stating the second paragraph. Struggle for life is the most severe between closely related species I agree. That is why we should not be killing animals for food, because when we do such there is very little struggle, we are so evolved/advanced that we can take whatever we want. Even the particularly intelligent forms of our prey stand very little to no chance against us. This is why we should not kill these species, as we do not further evolution in anyway, we actually decrease such. Next you bring in the deer point from your second round. However I would like to notice that we are not the sole predator of deer. The better idea would be to bring in wolves which would stimulate evolution instead of us simply destroying the deer. Next, the point on evolution that you do argue. "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." >>Great.... Humans have instincts also. We have the instinct to sexual reproduce however this doesn't result in rape. We may even have instincts to eat certain animals, however this does not prevent of the choice of doing so. The difference between humans and the animals you mention is the fact that we can better stop ourselves. Instinct does not equal truth or good. Bring me a way in which evolution as applied to humans in my interpretation fails. =) Your finals statement is in response to mine re-stating what your challenge was. I have fulfilled your challenge, despite obvious flaw in your resolution title. I attacked it on three main points. "1. Humans don't naturally eat meat/can choose their own food chain. 2. Killing animals kills potential intelligence. 3. All life is equal. Murder is immoral." You have yet to refute any of my reasons, and even agreed with the 3rd. Thank you. =)