Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: Yes, I agree.

Burden of proofJace,"When someone advances a claim they have the burden of proof." JaceI beg to differ. One side having the burden of proof is preferable only when an equal burden would be result in an unfair situation. For example, if the resolution was "unicorns exist." It would be unfair for the side against unicorns existing to have to prove that unicorns don't exist. Therefore, the burden of proof rests on the side for unicorns existing. Since it is far easier to prove a positive, then to prove a negative. In summary, burden of proof should be shared. You only makes a rebuttal without an argument. I can only defend my argument against Jace's rebuttal. Since an imperfect argument will almost always be better than no argument, you are conceding the debate. Sentience As for sentience. You only criticize the idea of sentience that I have presented, without committing to a view yourself. I stand by science stating that animals are sentient and plants aren't. I have provided proof. Jace, you have the burden of proof to show that plants are sentient, since for me to show that plants aren't sentient would require me to prove a negative. I contend that Jace has shown inadequate evidence to show that plants are sentient. Only showing stimulus and response.  Even if plants were sentient, less plants would be killed on a vegan diet. Thus the entire plant sentience is a major red herring.Environment As for environmental concerns about b-12 production, Jace has made no argument that cows should be banned. Thus, this rebuttal is easily defended by stating that the environmental damage of b-12 production is far less than cow's.  Jace then tried to reassert his rebuttal by stating that I never advocated for cows. Yet, Jace is on the side of no, I reject the resolution. In other words, no change. Since cows are used now, Jace is making an argument for cows to be raised for meat.Nutrient deficiencies on vegan dietI contend that we have debated this issue enough. Jace is free to attack on this front again, but I am confident I have defended myself well on this front. I'll let the judges decide who make the better argument. Eating of insects Jace, never really explained if insects would fully replace all other non-vegan food. As for water usage, the feed fed to the insects would need water. Even if the insects themselves needed little water. Due to tropic levels eating of insects would require more water than eating the plants that fed the insects directly.  As for insects being able to eat food waste. This is true, but if insect farms really took off, there would only be so much food waste to go around. Insects contain high levels of animal protein, which I've shown to raise IGF-1 levels and increase risk for cancer. Jace talks about feasibility of insect eating to vegan. Yet, I contend that replacing all non-vegan foods with insects is less feasible than switching to an all vegan diet. I showed this by stating how I've never seen any insect dishes in supermarkets nor restaurants in my country.  If Jace means only replacing a small amount of insects with cattle meat, then the difference would be small. Since Jace seems to be advocating including a small amount of insects into Western diets, the change would be negligible and unimportant. In contrast, my change has the power to put a real dent in the world's problems. Including animal suffering, environment, health, world hunger, and water shortages. All in all I contend that I have successful defended my argument against Jace's rebuttal.