Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

I actually agree that killing the dumbest of animals like fish and bugs is probably no big deal. I left that out to keep things simple.I see. There's a bonus point for you in realising that insects are animals too, most people seem oblivious to that.I think killing more intelligent animals like chickens is probably not ok. Cows and pigs are well across the line.Why do you condemn their killing? I agree that intelligent animals shouldn't suffer but there are ways used in the butchering process to kill without inflicting a prolonged death.I also agree that eating non-factory farmed meat is much less of an issue.Then shouldn't you be framing this discussion as vegetarianism against factory farming? Or, vegetarianism and home farming against factory farming?This is a bogus argument. We could preserve species without slaughtering them. We can, but our culture demonstrates that this is only a recently acquired trait. Instead we tend to best preserve that which we find useful. If it wasn't for pets, meats, farming, and gardens we probably would have removed thousands more species from the Earth.This is also in line with evolution. Animals in nature will farm other animals or use other animals and form a relationship. Some ants do this with fungi, flowers do this with bees, we do this with agriculture.The suffering we inflict upon animals is the primary issue here. Ethics are based on the maximization of happiness and the minimization of suffering. Inflicting pain on a sentient being without adequate justification is wrong. End of story.Alright, I see the heart of your argument. You're favouring a departure from a society that survives into a society which seeks to be magnanimous towards other kinds. I suggest you frame this issue from a evolutionary standpoint instead of a moral or ethical one. At the moment we can afford to be generous to other species but remember that life itself is a struggle, and always will be, for resources. You should take from it a respect for the ephemeral nature of life and indeed species in this struggle, and that life always changes so that eventually we will be on the other side of this argument again having to kill for survival. In other words, this shouldn't be about minimising pain and suffering, because pain and suffering exist and always will. This should be about preventing needless suffering, like what you find in a slaughterhouse when a live animal is beaten, or in a packed pen where chickens fight each other, or worse when cows trample each other.Of course, most beef isn't grass fed, but is instead fed with harvested grains, so we run into the same problem there. And also, agricultural practices could be improved significantly from a moral standpoint if they took minimization of harm into account.I can only speak as a person who has lived with horses my entire life on a small farm, that feeding these animals grass only is not good for the animal. They need supplements of alfalfa, and grains in order to build up weight. I don't know whether this applies to cows, but it probably does otherwise farmers would have used only grass because it's more cost-effective.