It should be considered morally wrong to kill sentient animals for their meat

Counter-arguments “To begin, I will state what will happen to cattle if released into the wild” This is a non-sequitor if we regard what I have argued. It is wrong to assume that if we are not to eat cattle, that they would automatically be released into the wild, as instances where it would not follow are possible. Furthermore, I would argue that this would be the wrong thing to do (which is, ironically, what you are implying), as the cattle would, most likely, be torn apart in the wild and suffer greatly as a result. To put it simply, I have not argued for this. “If you are implying that agriculturists in the area give up the land that has been in their families for tens of generations, or the alternative, mass transporting them to another country with rural land that has not been claimed” My argument is that you don’t kill them to eat them because it should be considered morally wrong. Families that have been harvesting cattle for ages don’t have to give up their land, they just have to not kill animals in order to eat them. “Let's just forget the millions of dollars invested in the land and the hundreds of thousands of hours all of the family has invested in putting up fences, moving cattle, branding.” In the past, people have been used as slaves for business. Would you honestly say that it would be wrong to stop slavery? No, because slavery is morally wrong. It doesn’t matter if it’s a tradition or if a great amount of money is being generated, the business should be considered immoral. It doesn’t even matter if the solution is highly costly or somewhat impractical, killing animals so that you can eat them still should be considered morally incorrect. “Let's examine this silly little scenario, we'll start with if all the agriculturists just got up and gave up all the land they owned. These animals are now wild. American people want meat…” This and the argument that follows are both void because: 1) Agriculturalists do not have to give up their land 2) The animals do not have to be released into the wild 3) Regardless of whether people want meat, it should be considered wrong to kill animals for their meat “Now we'll examine if an animal were shipped off to a completely remote area. Not including the price to the organization transporting them by boat, train or other means of transportation.” Look, if the costs are such big problem, then perhaps the government help out so that the last cattle on the planet (assuming that no-one wants to breed them) are treated morally. But again, this is not an argument against the moral position I have argued for, it is simply a ‘well, this isn’t really cost-efficient for the farmers’. “…If, all the livestock were placed in a rural area they would no doubt die within a month, tops…” We, as humans, are morally obliged to take care of them, according to my argument. Once again, this counter-argument follows as a non-sequitor from my argument, and therefore, does not contradict my argument. “Now let's go into what would happen if we just continued to hand out more money to feed cattle and move them for no reason to different pastures so they don't overgraze and kill themselves by starving. The cattle would become so populous after all the effort to keep them alive with absolutely no gain, that they would literally be eating more pasture than we have.” The government of the country could help subsidies the cattle’s existence, and the cattle can be stopped from reproducing so that the problem does not become permanent. “I believe that if you could ask a livestock animal if it would rather starve to death, get shot multiple times, get torn in half by predators or actually die peacefully, that would be it's choice. Wouldn't it be yours?” You let them die of natural causes, or kill them if they are suffering greatly. Clearly, putting a cow, say on top of a volcano for it to die relatively quickly, is not to allow it to live its life, and it is certainly not its choice. It can still die peacefully without having to be killed for your hungry stomach. “Behind water, protein is the most commonly found substance in your body. When you consume food it is broken down and converted into amino acids. There are 20 different amino acids and they all have the purpose of keeping your muscles strong … to how you move and do everyday tasks. It is evident that protein is needed in the body. Here is a graph of My plate, which recommends meat in your daily diet. It is highly recommended by nutrition experts and doctors to follow this graph.” While there are certainly benefits to eating meat (practicality, nutritional value etc.), the moral harm of imposing suffering and or death upon an animal still remains. Besides, ‘In vitro meat’ is an alternative to animal harvesting that provides most of the benefits of meat without having to harvest animals. It involves producing meat through test-tube means. As to the cost involving production, government subsidisation could help overcome the costs. Regardless, killing animals for their meat should be considered immoral based on the moral framework I have provided, which, again, has NOT been addressed. Conclusion My opponent has committed the non-sequitor that if it should be considered to kill animals for their meat, that the farmers will lose their land and that they have to get rid of their cows. The farmers can keep both, it’s just that they cannot morally kill the cattle for their meat. My opponent, in fact, has only argued that it would be costly, annoying, contrary to tradition etc. to stop killing animals for their meat; he has not argued that it is moral or provided counter-arguments to mine. He has continued to argue that the problem is that the animals would die if they were left to run in the wild, when my argument EXPLICITLY states that we have a moral obligation to prevent suffering, thus his counter-argument is negated – his counter-argument is an extension that cannot follow from mine. Furthermore, my opponent has failed to address the framework of my moral argument, since he merely argues the impracticality of farmers and the necessity for humans to eat. Even if these two things are true, it still should be considered morally wrong to kill animals for their meat. Therefore, my moral framework remains uncontested.