It should be considered morally wrong to kill sentient animals, without consent, for their meat

My opponent concedes that many species of carnivores are required to kill other sentient animals for their meat in order for them to survive. Yet, my opponent claims that such activity on the part of the non-human animal still ought to be considered immoral. Implications: a. My opponent is obviously addressing humans in this debate, since only humans read. Therefore, my opponent is NOT appealing to the nonhuman animal to do something, but is instead calling for ONLY a human mindset/policy. b. Indeed, my opponent says: "we [humans] are morally obliged to prevent unnecessary suffering." How are we to do that? My opponent argues that humans must ELIMINATE CARNIVORES. Specifically, my opponent is calling for two human policies. According to Pro, humans should (1) Prevent carnivores from breeding, and (2) force carnivores of sentient creatures to STARVE TO DEATH. c. My opponent does NOT argue that this mentality would kill off entire species; instead, my opponent says that would be a good thing. My opponent also makes clear that this destruction of species would be against their consent. Contention 1: Anthropomorphism My opponent's claims that because animals have the capacity for empathy, they have morality, but to a lesser extent than humans. I won't bother rejecting my opponent's sources, because it doesn't matter whether or not they are correct; his conclusions are wrong regardless. My opponent's claims break a principle that has guided animal behavior psychology for more than a century: Morgan's Canon, which states that one should not claim that a behavior is caused by a complex process when it can be explained by a simpler one [1]. Simply having the capacity for empathy is a FAR CRY from morality. My opponent showed a video of a dog trying someone. However, my opponent's sources even recognize that dogs have evolved in order to please their masters (humans), and thus the dog was most likely behaving in such a way that pleased her master in order to secure food. My opponent gave no evidence that rejects that. Additionally, my opponent gave no evidence that a predator feels empathy for her prey. Even if he did, my opponent does not give any evidence for empathy equally morality. My opponent makes the ridiculous assertion that animals ought to starve themselves in order to save others, because they have the hint of a mental process that vaguely resembles a part of human morality. Non-human animals cannot be held to any sort of this kind of moral standard, and my opponent's continuing to claim this is an example of anthropomorphism, which as I have explained leads to human's maltreatment of animals. You must reject my opponent's Finding Nemo-like representation of non-human animals. Contention 2: Speciesism My opponent uses bad psychology to falsely claim that non-human animals have the capacity for an "inferior" morality, and that because of this fact humans have the authority to pass moral judgement over the non-human animals. In fact, this is quite hypocritical, since humans are the least moral creatures on earth, even by their own standards (let alone the standards of other species). 1. Even humans can't agree on morality; there is no way animals should be held to those standards. The crusades and 9/11 occurred due to humans' disagreement on morality, and caused slaughtering many innocent lives. 2. Humans are the least moral species. Only humans have committed genocide; only humans have institutions of slavery; humans have made more species extinct than any other; humans are responsible for global warming, pollution, dropping nuclear weapons, deforesting, and torturing and murdering 70 billion non-human species in factory farms [2]. Humans are omnivores and thus do not even need to kill animals, but are still the greatest criminals in the animal kingdom. Only 3% of Americans refuse to buy from the meat industry [3]. And yet, my opponent thinks that humans understand inter-species morality so well that they are able to pass judgement on entire species. 3. My opponent falsely assumes that humans are superior to other animals. This is same disregard for non-human values is what has led many animal species to become extinct, has caused global warming, and caused the genocide of non-human animals. My opponent is literally advocating killing entire species because they do not conform to human (the most evil species on earth, even by their own standards) morality. This idea of human superiority to other species caused so many animals to suffer and be murdered in the first place. Contention 3: The End of Life My opponent literally advocates the extinction of carnivores. There are many more carnivores than lions. Here is a list of more carnivores than I care to count: [3]. And these are just mammals. My opponent would have killer whales, sea lions, and even dolphins die at the hands of humans [4]. Even most spiders are carnivores [6]. If carnivores are killed off or made to not have children, there would be a radical change in the already fragile food web that would cause additional starvation, additional extinction, and therefore additional starvation [5]. This cycle would likely make earth unable to support life for any species, including humans. Thus, my opponent's plan and mentality could bring about the greatest and most selfish, speciesist, hateful genocide of all time: the slaughter of everyone. Contention 4: Utter Immorality My opponent says that the destruction of carnivores would bring about an end to the cycle of suffering. This might be correct, since everyone would be dead. I must say firstly, though, that everyone would starve to death, which would obviously cause lots of suffering. Even beyond the suffering though, this would be an utterly tragic occurrence. Trillions would die; even more including unborn offspring. All acts of compassion and morality would cease. It would NOT be a moral world, for there would be no one left to be moral. I'm actually sympathetic toward humans' being allowed to take their own individual lives, but to kill others is very morally wrong. My opponent is sentencing innocent species to execution, even ones who have not killed other sentient animals. The entire planet would suffer. I can barely conceive of killing another sentient creature because I think differently from that creature. My opponent has much more creativity than I, and suggests destroying entire species because they think differently from him, and bringing about the end of all life, or at least most lives. My opponent has the nerve to call this "moral." Conclusion: At best, my opponent advocates the end of hundreds of species, either by starving them or making them never have children (effectively killing any possible children of that species). At worst, my opponent is advocating something that will end all life. Why? My opponent insists that animals ought to follow human-like morality. This is extremely silly because humans don't follow human morality, and don't generally execute people (let alone species) because they don't follow moral codes. They certainly don't morally condone executing people for simply surviving. Con may pretend he didn't say this. Remember, he states: "The lion has to...consume...meat...; why would you want to condone the existence of such a morally revolting creature?" "...carnivores should be disallowed from breeding" "" which is the least morally problematic?-: allowing these terrible creatures to eat", or to starve them to death and end" suffering?" [1] ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgan's_Canon [2] http://www.lcanimal.org... [3] http://www.theanimalfiles.com... [4] http://wiki.answers.com... [5] http://endangeredspecies.about.com... [6] http://www.sciencedaily.com...