Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: No, I reject the resolution.

As for your argument on plant sentience. [...] but that is not the same thing."1Your counter-reference is literally a comment chain on a news media page; it is comprised of unverified people lacking credentials (or even a full names), and a number of them also disagree with you.The standard advanced by your reference is that suffering is constituted by an aversive response to negative stimuli; plants meet that criteria. Moroever, all we know is that plants do not expeience suffering the way animals do. This does not mean that they do not experience it at all, and to suggest otherwise is extremey anthropcentric. That is the very bias your own reference dismisses in order to build their claim for universal animal sentience. If you dismiss plant suffering because we do no yet understand how they process experiences, then it is equally valid to dismiss the universalized claim of animal suffering your reference makes without evidence. If you dismiss plant suffering because they process it somewhat differently than animals, then it is equally valid to dismiss animal suffering becuase they process it somewhat differently from humans. Your distinction is arbitrary, and represents an inconsistent application of your own principle. Unless you can actually substantiate your seemingly arbitrary differentiation between plants and animals, your non-differentiation between other animals and humans does not stand. Simply reiterating that plants do not feel pain like animals do is utterly inadequate reasoning, in case you are inclinced to attempt that route again. As for animal deaths, the least amount of harm is caused by a vegan diet.I never said that the vegan diet does not lead to fewer animal deaths; I said that this is irrelevant because of the preceding rationale. Animals eat meat for survival, humans don't.You are assuming that necessity matters to morality withou explaining why it should. Rather as you have assumed that sentience should matter, actually. I wonder, can you actually defend either assertion?There are other omnivores whose consumption of meat cannot plausibly be claimed to be always necessary, because they do not only eat meat when there is no other food. There are carnviores who will eat even when not eating would not mean they starve, and whose eating is also sometimes not necessary for survival. In any of those cases, these animals' consumption would be immoral; again, this seems absurd and your counteragumets indicates you agree. Notably, there are also other animals which kill for pleasure (e.g. dolphins); does that make them moral? Given the nutritional shortcomings of veganism (discussed at greater length below), it is entirely defensible to claim that at least some animal consumption is necessary for human well-being. Quite simply, if we did not need to be omnivores to survive we should expect not to have evolved to be omnivores which is obviously not the case. Supplements are not a feasible new solution to the circumstances that produced this attribute, for reasons mentioned before and never addressed by yourself. Humans not only have the physiological attributes of herbivores but fare better on a vegan diet. All those antioxidants, fiber, and phytonutrients. While avoiding excess fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal protein.This is factually inaccurate (again, discussed at greater length below). Briefly, though, plants alone are indequate for human nutrition; this is why humans evolved to be omnivores (see my earlier references which you have ignored). Supplements do not alter this conditions, for reasons already explained and not refuted. All of your evidence and analysis falsely presumes a certain omnivore model, to the exclusion of all other possible models, and are therefore inconsequential. I have explained this at length already (see one case of husbandary not all cases points) and your failure to respond is tacit concession of the matter.I skimmed your links couldn't find the two billion people number. This is a comparison between people eating a few bugs versus no animal products at all. I doubt those two billion people ate insects as their only source of animal products.Your personal lack of application is not my problem; the information is htere. Perhaps you should actually read my references instead of skimming them, or at the very least do a text search for the relevant information. I never claimed all two billion people ate no other meat products. You argued that people would not eat insects, and I raised this fact to demonstrate that they already do. That number of people open to eating insects - combined with an extensive human history of having done so, the non-generalizeability of the "ick factor" to the majority of the world population, and growing political support among governments and the UN - strongly suggests that a shift to entomophagy as a dominant omnivore model is plausible. (Certainly more plausible than veganism.) You must have skimmed my own arguments as well as my references, to have missed the holistic argument being made. At any rate, 0.0001% of the population being vegan hardly makes a worldwide ban on non-vegan foods remotely plausible. You never did cite that statistic, by the way, not that it matters given how miniscule it is. Nor did you ever give any other reason to think it could become mainstream, let alone be imposed through governments. All in all, your claim remains wholly unsubstantiated. I saw a salad at a local restaurant and several other vegan dishes. There was no Entomphagy dishes. So what? I saw a burger at a local restaurant and several other omnivore dishes. There were no vegan dishes. Neither of us saying that proves anything at all, except that we each ate at restaurant with limited food options. As for insects being healthy, there seems to be a lack of scientific research.Again, this is where actually reading the references I provide would be helpful. I already provided you with a link that included nutritional information on a number of insects; it was summarized in a data table that would be hard to miss even for someone skimming.As far as the "lack of scientific research", here is what a very quick and simple google scholar searhc turned upon the health value of insects (a value, which, by the way, your own reference 3 acknowledges): [1] [2] [3] [4] The only thing lacking seems to be your committment to looking for information that contradicts your vegan ethics; your confirmation bias even leads you to ignore the direct contradictions to your claims presented in the very sources you reference.I did find this though, and apparently subjects reported nausea. 3Your reference reports nausae from eating mites only, not all insects. It does not control for other variables, such as social priming, and therefore does not establish causation with entomophagy. Given that your own reference along with my own identify the "ick factor" as being culturally induced rather innate or even prevailing among the human population, it follows that a cultural re-education program would be successful (while also being a non-unique process when compared to veganism, unless you mean to suggest that veganism will just spread itself).As for supplements being inefficient, its pretty clear that methane from cows is a bigger environmental problem.This is entirely non-responsive and does nothing to disprove the inefficiencies of supplements, nor their issues of environmental and human chemical impacts, class-based inaccessibility, or absorbtion issues. These were all points I raised and substantiated with references. They are all points you are tacitly conceding by your digression into an unrrelated issue (using cows) which I have never advocated.As for vegan receiving enough nutrition b-12 seems to be the only concern.Your first two references substantiate B-12 deficiency in vegans. Your third suggests that organics have higher concentrations of B-12, but does not prove that this concentration is relatively adequate for humans needs or as well suited to human absorbtion (it also makes such wild claims as there being no such thing as actual B-12 deficiency which rather undermines its overall credibility). None of them actually identifies a scientificaly substantiated vegan diet which avoids deficiency without rellying upon supplements. More importantly, none of them prove your claim that B-12 is the only relevant dificiency.In fact, vegans are at well-established, higher than average risk for deficiency in both B-12 and vitamin D. They are also at greater risk for additional deficiencies in protein, iodine, calcium, zinc, iron, and riboflavin (sometimes even with supplements). [5] [6] [7] The necessity of supplements to the vegan diet is inescapable, and it is one of many critical points you have failed to address.It is also worth mentioning that one of the most commonly relied upon nutrient sources for protein among vegans, according to the aforementinoed reports, tends to be nuts or legumes which are highly inefficient when it comes to water consumption. Given how pressing an issue water itself is becoming globally, it seems imprudent to endorse a vegan diet which exacerbates the problem when there is a better alternative (e.g. & esp. entomophagy). Vegan diets are healthier than the nauseating dishes of insects.You have absolutely no evidence to support this claim, whereas I have provided numerous reasons with accompanying evidence to suggest otherwise. And your personal disgust has absolutely no relevance on the matter, despite your apparent belief that it should. Do you realize you sound just as small-minded as the people who dismiss veganism because it does not appeal to their pallet?