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

And you must certainly be aware that animals and humans are quite different. Even if animals have some level of intelligence, it must be vastly different from that of humans. Think of a pig compared to a human. If the proposition that all animate life is equally intelligent and sentient seems absurd to you, that is hardly my fault. This is the natural conclusion one arrives at when following your highly diluted conception of sentience. Because all animate life processes suffering (and pleasure) in some way and also responds to it, as borne out by your evidence for animals and mine for plants (which you have completely ignored). You are being inconsistent in the application of your principle.When you claim that it is immoral for humans to kill and consume something capable of suffering you are introducing an absolute principle. It should not matter how many are killed because in every case we are causing suffering that otherwise would not exist. It is not relevant that we would have to kill fewer plants than animals in order to live, because we would need to kill none if we instead killed ourselves through starvation. If it is permissible to value ourselves over plants then it must also be permissible to value ourselves over other animals, unless plant suffering can be somehow distinguished from animal suffering which would require you to accept that suffering is not the only attribute of concern; but that would repudiate your premise. You must either abandon your principle or endorse human starvation, because by your standard plants and animals are equal (however absurd that may seem).There is also no fundamental moral difference between any other animal killing and consuming another animal and a human doing it. A lion or cat killing another animal may be less cruel than factory farming, but that does not mean that it is actually swift or merciful; the animal that dies still suffers. And because suffering is what makes the killing and consumption wrong, it necessarily follows that other animals killing other animals for food is immoral as well. This is absurd, and your attempt to deny the point indicates you agree that it is absurd.Human ancestors were herbivores so it is no surprise at all that we retain many physiological attributes of herbivores, which is really all your reference suggests. Those origins do not alter the fact that we subsequently evolved, along with other primates, to be omnivores capable of digesting meat and reaping some of the unique benefits that conferred [1] [2]. How we came to be omnivores is ultimately irrelevant to the fact that we are indeed omnivores, vis a vis evolution, and so our act of killing and consuming meet is ultimately just as natural as when any other animal does the same out of its respective nature.You are asserting without reason that because humans have created one flawed system of husbandry in recent history that we cannot be trusted to make a better one, even though the overwhelming history of human husbandry did not occur under this one model. That is not only ridiculous, but actually somewhat alarming; by that reasoning why should we ever try to improve upon ourselves individually or collectively? I mean we mucked it up that one time, so obviously we cannot be counted on to do better ever again. I never claimed that animal products are as efficient as vegan products, because they only need to be efficient enough to address your environmental and world hunger concerns. Additionally, so long as majority production and consumption was focused away from inefficient animal production there is no reason that limited production and consumption could not continue since it would not pose any actual threat to environment or food access; therefore, a categorical ban is unwarranted from the basis of your argument. Entomophagy (eating of insects) is actually quite preferable to veganism for numerous reasons. Not the least of which is that it actually already has vastly more popular support than veganism, with roughly two billion people eating insects worldwide (28% of world population) compared to one million vegans (0.0001%), and a much lengthier history of practice as well. There is also growing socio-political support for entomophagy, which cannot be said for veganism and certainly not for a non-vegan food ban (which, by the way, is entirely different from a gradual process of transition). [3] [4] [5] Entomphagy is also more accessible, healthier, and efficient than veganism. A healthy vegan diet is reliant upon nutritional supplements which are produced in laboratories, whereas insects are commonly accessible to basically anyone and compliment the deficits of an otherwise vegetarian or vegan diet. Supplements are either produced naturally, in which case the process of refinement is very inefficient in terms of the amount of organic material required and the energy invested in extracting the nutrients, or they are synthetic in which case they use numerous chemical agents and also encounter issues about proper absorption and processing (there are of course natural-synthetic hybrids as well, but that just seems to capture the worst of both options). The efficiency of veganism is a myth, unless you propose to put the whole species on an unhealthy diet. [6] [7]