Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

"You ignore people who know better than you..."If you don't understand why I'm reluctant to accept unsourced claims from an anonymous stranger, then I'm afraid that says more about you than it does about me."rationalise a perfect solution fallacy"I am not arguing that avoiding meat is perfect, just that it is better."your position is based on a feeling, an emotional choice, with rational justification coming after the fact"It doesn't matter where the rationale comes from so long as that rationale is logically founded."abstain from meat is based upon a personal preference"It's not a personal preference. I would prefer to eat meat. Mostly because it's easier to follow the crowd than to think for oneself. Seriously, do you think I enjoy taking shit from sneering mobs with a near religious commitment to the consumption of meat? I don't. I avoid meat simply because in my judgment it is the logically consistent thing to do."I don't think of foods as distinct types but instead as related proteins, lipids, sugars and steroids"Ok, yes, when you break it down enough all food is simply combinations of molecules... but do you not agree that these particular arrangements of molecules have been shown to lead to heart disease (even if we don't know how exactly)? "people in the developing world use saturated fats as part of their energy source without ill effect"I have not seen that statement anywhere. Perhaps the harm from saturated fat is simply less than the harm from starvation."bear in mind that without the relationship fully ascertained..."Right, but do you agree that a causative relationship between saturated fat and heart disease is at least a reasonable possibility?"reductio ad absurdum argument"Reductio ad absurdum is not a fallacy. I'm asking you to draw a line. When do you think force is appropriate? Why? If you want to fast-forward a bit, whatever your answer is, I'm going to continue asking 'why?', until you're left with the basic principles of utilitarianism. From that foundation I will assert the utility of democratic government and coercive laws."you can't force people to be moral or good towards each other or animals"You absolutely can. You simply pass laws which disincent people from immoral behavior."How people treat each other in their daily lives is shaped by culture, not government"It's shaped by both. When one is tempted to commit murder, both the cultural values and legal incentives will factor into whether or not they actually go through with it."the most restrictive and regulated governments don't follow with the most compassionate or well-aimed citizens"More anecdotes. Come back to this point with a proper rebuttal."Everyone has an idea what the common good is."But not all of those ideas are logically founded."There are probably hundreds of different ideologies based around some perceived notion of what a common good is, and how to achieve it."And we should attempt to select the best one."pushing your view of the common good"Again, it's not about my personal view, it's about the logically inescapable fact that sentient beings have evolved to experience certain things in positive ways and certain things in negative ways."A common ethic implies values shared by everyone, or at least values that everyone can agree upon."And I'm saying everyone should be able to agree on this value. Because it is founded on clear logical principles."Pain and hardship are undesirable but necessary."Not all pain and hardship are necessary. I'm arguing that the suffering we inflict upon animals, for instance, is unnecessary.