Instigator / Pro
1472
rating
2
debates
0.0%
won
Topic

It is in the best interest of humanity that we attempt to transition toward veganism

Status
Debating

Waiting for the instigator's third argument.

The round will be automatically forfeited in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Miscellaneous
Time for argument
Two weeks
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Con
1500
rating
0
debates
0.0%
won
Description
~ 300 / 5,000

The title says it. I believe it is in the best interest of humanity to make a transition to veganism. I understand we wouldn't just be able to instantly all turn vegan and live happily ever after. That obviously isn't how it works, but I AM talking about a slow and steady transition toward veganism.

Round 1
Pro
First, I would like to thank Con for getting into this debate with me. That being said, I will use 3 fronts in my first argument. These fronts being ethical concerns, health, and environmental impact.



1) Ethical

I am making a guess that con has standard moral values, moral values such as not killing or torturing a person. I am also making a guess that Con believes that animals beings tortured and murdered are not morally wrong, but why? If con believes this, this would be cognitive dissonance.
To logically justify not murdering someone, but murdering an animal, you would have to give a trait that humans have that animals do not that justify us gassing pigs to death, or separating a calf from its mother, after having forcibly impregnated that female cow a couple of months earlier.

I will also put things we do to animals and would like Con to say if doing these same things to humans would conflict with their moral system, and therefore be wrong.

Gassing pigs, which takes sometimes up to a minute, and also having the liquid in their nose, eyes, mouth, and even their lungs acidize because of the acid, which would make you feel like you are catching on fire inside of your own body. You could imagine the pain.


Mother cows are visibly distraught when their calves are separated from them, like how it would be when humans are separated from their children by force.


We kill 3 billion farm animals, not per year, but each day, which is absolutely appalling. We want to save the pandas and the sharks, but if everyone took a taste of panda steak and shark fin soup and liked it enough, people would probably change their minds in an instant


Male baby chicks are put into a macerater simply because they cannot lay eggs, and they are bred to grow large enough.



I think I have gone too long about ethics. Now, it is time to get to the health portion.


2) Health



I am sure I and Con can both agree that veganism/vegetarianism is healthier for the average person. If not, then I suppose we could discuss that at a later date. Although, what I want to talk about here and now is the coronavirus. The coronavirus is classified as a “Zoonotic” disease. This means that it came from an animal.

You see, the majority of animals in factory farms (Which is where many people get their meat and animal products from) have horrible, dirty, and nasty conditions. They are literal breeding grounds for diseases. So, if a pig, let’s say, were to get a disease, and that disease was to mutate and just so happen to mutate in a way where it could infect other animals, like us, that would give a high risk of this disease interacting with humans already. 
But not only this, but we then eat that diseased pig’s corpse, giving the great chance of a zoonotic disease happening again. People are talking about ways to prevent another pandemic, but factory farms never come up. These factory farms have such horrid conditions, and unlike humans nowadays, are bunched up like sardines. 

We stay six feet away from people outside our families, but completely refuse to stop putting cows together like sardines, which allows a disease from even ONE animal, to spread to several of them in a factory farm. These animals interact with humans quite a bit and are also, of course, sent to your dinner plate.
Not only this, but the disease would then be replicating much more, therefore have increased the chances that one strain of this disease will allow it to infect humans, and then you have a pandemic on your hands.


Not only this but there is another case for health. We all know that before the time of antibiotics, humans died a lot younger because bacteria could kill us so much easier. They were a silent monster that murdered us unexpectedly. After so long of using antibiotics, there are bacteria that are evolving to be immune to most, if not all antibiotics. These bacteria are called superbugs, and by 2050, it is estimated that they will kill more people than cancer, which kills so many people per year and hurts so many more.

My point to all of this is that animals contribute a lot to it. Animals use up 70% of antibiotics in the US, and that number is only INCREASING.


Because animals encounter much more disease and bacteria than the average human does, and because animals use up the majority of our antibiotics, this means that animals have contributed a LOT to the growth of superbugs.



Not only this, but these antibiotics could instead be used for children, instead of a pig that is going to be painfully gassed to death for up to a minute, and then end up on your grill.



3) Environment

26% of the worlds land is used for livestock grazing. That is almost a third of the land on this planet. We already going to have a space issue in the decades to come, and this only makes it far worse. Not only thing, but this also means that trees and natural wildlife must be knocked down, which harms the environment in many ways.


The animal industry produces 14.5% of the greenhouse gases, but some studies sometimes even say it is higher.


The animal industry also is a factor in desertification.


The animal products industry also contributes to plastic pollution, as fishnets and other fishing gear make up 46% of the plastic in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.


40% of our crops are used to feed farm animals. This not only makes it so that more deforestation happens, but these crops could also be used to feed so many people. The crops in the US ALONE could feed 800 million people. That is absolutely insane. Could you imagine how many people the crops of the WORLD could feed?




Conclusion: It is in the best interest of humanity that we try to make a transition toward veganism. Just one of the reasonings above, whether it be environmental, ethical, or health-wise, is good enough for humanity to attempt to make a change.


Becoming vegan won’t solve all the problems in the world, but it will still get us a couple of steps closer to slowing down the increase in superbugs, preventing zoonotic diseases, cutting some of our greenhouse gases, actually listening to our own societal moral system, instead of ignoring it, making sure the amount of plastic that goes into the ocean each year decreases, getting closer to ending worldwide hunger, and so, so much more.

Con
Thank You, Pro.

First of all, I must specify that I only oppose the "vegan" in your argument. Humans are omnivores and meat I a natural food for us - just to a lesser, healthier extent.


DEBATE SETUP:

I am making a guess that con has standard moral values
If you mean the Judeo-Christian values - yes.


I am also making a guess that Con believes that animals beings tortured and murdered are not morally wrong, but why?
Human rights. Morality is to restrict one's own action to appease God, society or another greater force. Animals do not participate in "morality".


 it is in the best interest of humanity to make a transition to veganism
Could you please explain what exactly you think should happen, and why? Even if you were 100% correct I would not want the government to start controlling the economy.


 I understand we wouldn't just be able to instantly all turn vegan and live happily ever after.
We could - but the health issues would be severe. It is the same problem facing a slow decline, even modern science cannot undo thousands of years of evolution in time.


I am sure I and Con can both agree that veganism/vegetarianism is healthier for the average person.
I do not think so. However, I think vegans, since their food lack some important "foods", need to be concerned about what they eat. A healthy diet including meat, eggs, milk, etc, would be healthier than a vegan diet - after all, that's how our biology wants us to eat.


ADMISSION:

I am also making a guess that Con believes that animals beings tortured and murdered are not morally wrong, but why? 
First of all, I do not support torture in any kind - but I could see why spies in a war could be tortured for crucial information, but that does not mean I accept it.
Secondly, I must admit that I am a Christian and follow the Judeo-Christian values. God allows humans to use what they need for survival - including animal meat - but must not destroy, harm or inflict pain to anything in nature without a clear intention or purpose. Killing off Buffaloes without eating them would neither be beneficial nor necessary.

I also do not oppose your claims about the problems created by the food industry.


REBUTTALS:

To logically justify not murdering someone
Kant's school of thought:
  • If humans kill each other, there will be no humans left
  • If there are no humans left, humans cannot kill each other any longer
  • Killing each other is therefore unsustainable and thereby "immoral"
but murdering an animal,
Kant's school of thought:
  • If humans kill animals but breed them at the same rate, they will not go extinct
  • If animals can be slaughtered indefinitely, humans can get an infinite supply animal meat
  • Killing animals but breeding them at the same time is sustainable and therefore "morally acceptable"

you would have to give a trait that humans have that animals do not
Why? Do animals think like this? Animals kill each other. In fact, one irrefutable fact is that humans have this "moral compass", while animals do not. Even if you are not religious, this thing should be enough to make humans superior. If one wants to give human rights to animals, then one is doing one of these things:
1. Lowering humans to be like animals
2. Just doing it as a virtue signal - aka wannabe more moral than other people


I will also put things we do to animals and would like Con to say if doing these same things to humans would conflict with their moral system, and therefore be wrong.
Cannibalism is unheard of, even among most animal species. Of course, human "morality" only applies to humans. If you think that humans have an obligation to spread morality, would that not be a quasi-religious claim, as a sect of Christianity or Hinduism?


You see, the majority of animals in factory farms (Which is where many people get their meat and animal products from) have horrible, dirty, and nasty conditions
Correct. The solution then is to make the conditions better, not to kill off all the animals, which we made dependent on us for survival.


The animal industry produces 14.5% of the greenhouse gases, but some studies sometimes even say it is higher.

Many countries, including my own - Norway - have great fishing economies and meat production in their own country. In fact, Norway has nearly no place for crops, but a lot of space is very capable of sustaining cattle using naturally grown grass. If Norwegians stopped eating cows and fish, they would instead need to transport all of those proteins from other countries.   As we know, meat is a necessary ingredient in a normal diet, and only in recent times has science been able to create a healthy vegan diet. Imagine how much more food would need to be transported. Instead of shipping a few oranges, we would require tonnes of vegan diet from different parts of the world. Sustainability is key when it comes to the environment, and many resources can only be utilised sustainable using meat production. This argument is a double-edged sword, this entire "environment" thing. 



Not only this, but these antibiotics could instead be used for children, instead of a pig that is going to be painfully gassed to death for up to a minute, and then end up on your grill.
Good point. But another solution is to use science to improve conditions for both humans and animals. Additionally, your own words make this argument invalid:
there are bacteria that are evolving to be immune to most, if not all antibiotics.
As you said yourselves, antibiotics cause mutations that lead to superbugs. So using more antibiotics on kids would only increase this problem, since we would be using more antibiotics directly on human sicknesses, instead of animal-human sicknesses. At least one of your arguments are invalid.



The animal products industry also contributes to plastic pollution, as fishnets and other fishing gear make up 46% of the plastic in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.

40% of our crops are used to feed farm animals. This not only makes it so that more deforestation happens, but these crops could also be used to feed so many people. The crops in the US ALONE could feed 800 million people. That is absolutely insane. Could you imagine how many people the crops of the WORLD could feed?
Each argument could be a good one, but they contradict each other. You claim that we need to utilize our area better, by producing crops instead of cattle. But if we stop fishing, that would be a total waste of 2/3s of the earth area. I would say we use our oceans before we start reorganising our agriculture. Our population is capped out anyways, so we should not try to find the way we can feed most people, but rather how we can feed the happiest people. As such, this argument is pointing in the right direction, but the fundamental assumptions are contradictory and or flawed.


good enough for humanity to attempt to make a change.
Humanity is not a single entity. Democracy would never force through such a change, even if it is slow. And if it did, that would be to control the economy, which would be more like communism than capitalism. A national agreement would be hard enough but think about the world. We have not even agreed on whether or not murdering political opponents is morally right or wrong, so even if your statement is correct, this won't happen.


CONCLUSION:

There are many solutions to the same problems, and veganism is too drastic and too radical to be the solution humanity needs.


Over to you, Pro

Sources:
[1]: Common sense
[2]: Common knowledge
[3]: Norwegian common knowledge

Round 2
Pro
First of all, I must specify that I only oppose the "vegan" in your argument. Humans are omnivores and meat I a natural food for us - just to a lesser, healthier extent.


That isn't an argument. You do realize that males are naturally more violent, right? But we don't justify random male outbursts of anger,  simply because it is natural. Also, give me a source that says it is not healthier, or at least not as healthy as a meat-based diet.

Human rights. Morality is to restrict one's own action to appease God, society or another greater force. Animals do not participate in "morality".

I do not believe in your God, or any other God. God is not logical reasoning for me and other people. Your reasoning for why animals should not be considered in morality (I.e the Christian God) cannot be used for the majority of people, including myself, and therefore you cannot use it as a logical excuse.

Could you please explain what exactly you think should happen, and why? Even if you were 100% correct I would not want the government to start controlling the economy.

What we need to do is shed light on the animal products industry. Light was shed on climate change and plastic pollution, and now people are wanting to make a change, even though such a change would be hard.

I do not think so. However, I think vegans, since their food lack some important "foods", need to be concerned about what they eat. A healthy diet including meat, eggs, milk, etc, would be healthier than a vegan diet - after all, that's how our biology wants us to eat.

The only thing missing from a vegan diet is vitamin b12, which can easily be gotten from supplements, and many vegan foods, like Impossible Burger, are actually adding b12 to their foods.
Also, again, just because it is natural, does not make it right. Male lions will murder and devour young that are not theirs and then rape the female lionesses to show dominance. This type of thing helps the strongest of lions survive, and therefore the best genes are passed on. This same thing would work very well for human beings, as anyone unfit to survive would die and not reproduce, but we still are against humans doing it because it is immoral, even if it is natural.

First of all, I do not support torture in any kind - but I could see why spies in a war could be tortured for crucial information, but that does not mean I accept it.
Secondly, I must admit that I am a Christian and follow the Judeo-Christian values. God allows humans to use what they need for survival - including animal meat - but must not destroy, harm or inflict pain to anything in nature without a clear intention or purpose. Killing off Buffaloes without eating them would neither be beneficial nor necessary.

I also do not oppose your claims about the problems created by the food industry.


But the problem is it ISN'T necessary. We could survive fairly nicely, if not better without meat or any other animal products. Also, I still do not believe in your God, neither does the majority of the population. I get that you use it for yourself, but this is a debate. Your personal beliefs which I do not agree with cannot be used to prove your point.

Okay, I admire that you admit you cannot fight against my points about the environment. I can't even do that at times. But the thing is, environmental impact is enough of a reason to transition to veganism, even if the other points I made are not valid (Which they are).

Kant's school of thought:
  • If humans kill each other, there will be no humans left
  • If there are no humans left, humans cannot kill each other any longer
  • Killing each other is therefore unsustainable and thereby "immoral"

That is terrible logic. Back in pre-historic ages, we killed each other off all the time, but we are still here. Even in an anarchy based society humans would still not completely die off. If I murder a child, that will not make the human species go extinct (Not even close), so by your and Kant's logic, it would be morally permissible.

Kant's school of thought:
  • If humans kill animals but breed them at the same rate, they will not go extinct
  • If animals can be slaughtered indefinitely, humans can get an infinite supply animal meat
  • Killing animals but breeding them at the same time is sustainable and therefore "morally acceptable"
That is also terrible logic. Forcing a sentient being capable of pain on many levels (Such as psychological, mental, physical, etc) to be tortured and live in dirty and disgusting environments IS immoral because society deems a human child living under those same conditions to be immoral.

Why? Do animals think like this? Animals kill each other. In fact, one irrefutable fact is that humans have this "moral compass", while animals do not. Even if you are not religious, this thing should be enough to make humans superior. If one wants to give human rights to animals, then one is doing one of these things:
1. Lowering humans to be like animals
2. Just doing it as a virtue signal - aka wannabe more moral than other people

Again, this is terrible logic. If a toddler kicks me in the balls, they cannot possibly comprehend why putting me through that pain is wrong. But does their lack of moral comprehension mean they have a lack of moral value? No, of course not. I cannot use my boot as a nutcracker against that kid's balls (Even if I want to at that moment) just because that kid cannot comprehend that doing the same to me is wrong

Cannibalism is unheard of, even among most animal species. Of course, human "morality" only applies to humans. If you think that humans have an obligation to spread morality, would that not be a quasi-religious claim, as a sect of Christianity or Hinduism?

It is normal among many carnivorous and omnivorous species. Also, your claim that morality can only apply to humans is absurd and needs backing, which you have none of.

Correct. The solution then is to make the conditions better, not to kill off all the animals, which we made dependent on us for survival.

If we do that solution, then
1) They never will
2) Even if they do, meat and other animal products will become so expensive, the majority of people will not be able to buy them, and therefore most people will go vegan anyway

Many countries, including my own - Norway - have great fishing economies and meat production in their own country. In fact, Norway has nearly no place for crops, but a lot of space is very capable of sustaining cattle using naturally grown grass. If Norwegians stopped eating cows and fish, they would instead need to transport all of those proteins from other countries.   As we know, meat is a necessary ingredient in a normal diet, and only in recent times has science been able to create a healthy vegan diet. Imagine how much more food would need to be transported. Instead of shipping a few oranges, we would require tonnes of vegan diet from different parts of the world. Sustainability is key when it comes to the environment, and many resources can only be utilised sustainable using meat production. This argument is a double-edged sword, this entire "environment" thing. 

But in the future, transportation will be cleaner, but if we continue to eat meat, we will still produce greenhouse gas. Also, you never actually disproved my point, instead saying it would be harder to ship food.

Good point. But another solution is to use science to improve conditions for both humans and animals. Additionally, your own words make this argument invalid:

Again, if we did that, animal products would become much more expensive, and therefore most people would become vegan anyway. Also, it most likely won't change, as politicians don't care for it to change, and the meat industry already has convinced everyone that throwing male baby chicks into a macerator is perfectly okay.

As you said yourselves, antibiotics cause mutations that lead to superbugs. So using more antibiotics on kids would only increase this problem, since we would be using more antibiotics directly on human sicknesses, instead of animal-human sicknesses. At least one of your arguments are invalid.

I did think that was a good point you made until I thought it a bit further. If we gave these antibiotics to children, these children would get into contact with harmful bacteria MUCH less than these animals, so the creation of superbugs would still slow down and give us more time to create a solution or approve of a solution

Each argument could be a good one, but they contradict each other. You claim that we need to utilize our area better, by producing crops instead of cattle. But if we stop fishing, that would be a total waste of 2/3s of the earth area. I would say we use our oceans before we start reorganising our agriculture. Our population is capped out anyways, so we should not try to find the way we can feed most people, but rather how we can feed the happiest people. As such, this argument is pointing in the right direction, but the fundamental assumptions are contradictory and or flawed.

You say my solution is bad, but give no logical reason why. Yes, we would not be using 2/3 of the area of Earth. So what? Crops would work far better, as they don't contribute to plastic pollution, and we already have enough to feed everyone on Earth, and then some. Besides, if we start focusing on fish a lot more, more fish will die which leads to food chains being destroyed, species becoming extinct, and plastic pollution getting worse.

Humanity is not a single entity. Democracy would never force through such a change, even if it is slow. And if it did, that would be to control the economy, which would be more like communism than capitalism. A national agreement would be hard enough but think about the world. We have not even agreed on whether or not murdering political opponents is morally right or wrong, so even if your statement is correct, this won't happen.

Like I said in the description, I get that. But just because the change won't be easy, doesn't mean we can't TRY to make it. We need to cut our greenhouse gases. Will it be hard? Yeah, it will. Is that reason not to do it? No. Also, of course, murdering political opponents is wrong. The only people who think it is right are politicians in corrupt countries, and many times they know it is wrong, but do it anyway.

There are many solutions to the same problems, and veganism is too drastic and too radical to be the solution humanity needs.

Veganism isn't drastic. Tell me, what IS the solution humanity needs? Murdering more fish instead of using crops for us that we already have? Also, any other solution is going half the distance. We could easily cut only a couple of our greenhouse gases. It would be much easier, and still, be far better than doing nothing, but we still are going the full distance, because it is the best thing to do.



Sources:
[1]: Common sense
[2]: Common knowledge
[3]: Norwegian common knowledge


You can't use those as sources, because those aren't sources. Just because you think something is common sense doesn't mean it is. I obviously win the sources side of this debate by a landslide.

Sources: Any sources I displayed in this argument, and my first argument

Over to you con. Good luck
Con
Thank You con.

I find it strange that you criticise me so much. I gave you a lot of challenges which you never addressed.


DEFENSE:

I do not believe in your God, or any other God. God is not logical reasoning for me and other people.
I said "God, society, or another authority". You make a straw man out of my statement. The thing is, "morality" is not what you personally like, but rather is a law or concept, given by an authority you respect - "personal morality" would be anarchy. You asked me about "standard morality", what does that even mean? The closest thing one can come to a "standard" morality is the Judeo-Christian values, which shaped Europe, USA, The west, UN etc. I will talk about this in an offensive way later.


 Also, give me a source that says it is not healthier, or at least not as healthy as a meat-based diet.
You were the one claiming vegan diets would be healthier. I replied by pointing out that vegans need to be nit-picky with what they eat, that is why they are more healthy. Do you seriously suggest that the most healthy diet would be 100% plant-based? Even if it was healthier, people do not need 100% of health to enjoy life, and many people like meat. Changing these facts would require 1. Centuries or millennia of evolution, 2. Genetically modifying humans. Neither option would be doable without major government influence.
 

Okay, I admire that you admit you cannot fight against my points about the environment.
No, I explained why your points against the environment were correct but not conclusive. I accepted the fact that "evil" meat factories do exist.


Even in an anarchy based society humans would still not completely die off.
Kant is one of the few non-religious people to ever create a moral system. [1] He is one of the most famous philosophers of all time. His philosophy was based on reason as the foundation of morality. If you call his logic "terrible", then you have no authority left: you do not believe in God, you do not believe in logic, what authority do you base your moral arguments on. Additionally, I have to spoon-feed you: "Kant's categorical imperative is based on EVERYONE doing the thing in question, in this case, murder". Your critique of the logic was both unnecessary


your claim that morality can only apply to humans is absurd and needs backing, which you have none of.
God / Kant's Philosophy can back up my claim. At least my world view is coherent and not random.




REBUTTALS:


Even in an anarchy based society humans would still not completely die off.
It depends on whether marriage is a thing or not. 
Just joking though XD


That is also terrible logic. Forcing a sentient being capable of pain on many levels (Such as psychological, mental, physical, etc) to be tortured and live in dirty and disgusting environments IS immoral because society deems a human child living under those same conditions to be immoral.
First of all, if humans are just animals then animals are just like plants: atoms. If humans are animals then they have no special "moral compass" and thus are not bound by morality - then we could kill both humans and animals without a bad conscience. Secondly,  a situation in which a human child is living in such conditions is not immoral but rather sad - I do not call the slum-people in India "Immoral" for getting babies. Most importantly, death is inevitable even for free animals. A question: would you rather live in poor conditions or die right away - the answer is simple, especially for the pig. Your argument is based on a hidden premise that implies poor conditions is torture, which is obviously not true. And even if all my logic is rejected by Pro, still he ignores another solution: improving conditions. 

Torture: The action or practise of inflicting severe pain or suffering on someone as a punishment or in order to force them to do or say something. [2]



of course, murdering political opponents is wrong. The only people who think it is right are politicians in corrupt countries, and many times they know it is wrong, but do it anyway.
Pro has no weight to this statement. He makes some claims which are true, but they do not help him because they imply morality is an inherently biological or spiritual thing, like a conscience. His morality is based on conscience which he believes is universal and something you are born with. But if that is true, why do people eat meat? They have had thousands of years to make agriculture a substitute for meat, but they never did. Why? Because every major moral system in existence (except Hinduism) accept killing animals for the pleasure of eating food - even his biological conscience.


Again, if we did that, animal products would become much more expensive, and therefore most people would become vegan anyway.
The market forces would stabilise, and meat would be eaten less frequently and instead treated as a kind of luxury. When humans eat less meat they will be healthier - not because the meat is unhealthy but because humans do not respect the triangle of food - they simply eat too much meat. But that is just speculation, as food becomes cheaper and cheaper to this day. Among the reasons that meat production is ineffective is that they have not been sprayed using chemicals and have not been genetically modified. We are in the process of making 35 GMO fish right now[3], and once these things start happening to cattle, we can improve the conditions and the effectiveness of meat production at the same time.


But in the future, transportation will be cleaner, but if we continue to eat meat, we will still produce greenhouse gas.
In the future, everything will happen. I could argue that in the future meat production will be cleaner. And consider this: when we use all the space on earth for plants rather than animals, we would destroy the balance between oxygen and carbon dioxide over time - another big threat. 


The solution then is to make the conditions better, not to kill off all the animals, which we made dependent on us for survival.

If we do that solution, then
1) They never will
The solution is veganism. If we do that solution then 1) They never will.
This particular argument is pure hypocrisy - regulation and inspection cannot be done so we should instead do a 180-turn from our biological diet into artificial veganism?




OFFENSE:

Animals
Pro argued that animals should be treated like humans. But he saw a big problem in giving animals medicine. He was willing to let all the meat animals go extinct so that HUMANS should not suffer from zoonic diseases. In addition to that, the title says "best interest for humanity", not "most moral choice", so every moral argument is irrelevant.

Morality
You make many claims about "morality" without referring to any source. Listen, I believe in God but have exactly the same moral standard moral values as you, after all your culture was shaped by Christianity (if you live in the west). But when we come to these ethical questions, you cannot make an ethical claim based on your opinion. The fact that you do not murder people does not make your claims about morality as valid as the moral you follow. Give me a source: a philosophy, a religion - anything. You have already rejected both God and Logic as sources for morality  - so in essence your morality is not grounded in anything - destroying your entire "Ethical" argument.

Best interest
The best interest for humanity, what is that? Does it mean to maximize the population, create the happiest people, discover new worlds? As you see, there is no single thing that can be called the "best interest of humanity", just a lot of minor goals that together will form our future. What Pro fails to understand is that by setting such a goal: veganism, one must override many other goals like capitalism, democracy, liberalism and freedom. If by "slow transition" he means no government interference he is not arguing for anything, rather he is just trying to predict the future of the food industry. Veganism is one of the most extreme ideologies out there when we consider its only 1 statement: "only eat plants".

End vs Means
Humans want to be better off - to we want to do what is beneficial. Let us assume vegan food is beneficial - would it not come along anyway, without any plan or intention for a transition? Indeed it would, capitalism does its trick. What you are proposing is a plan for humanity to transition into veganism. But if accept that idea, then we use veganism as an end instead of a means. We would no longer be trying to make the best food or the most sustainable world economy, we would focus on becoming vegans. The trick is that vegan food is healthy according to you, and as such, people should not be propelled into veganism by any organisation or campaign - because they do not need to.  

Diets
Vegans cannot just enter a store and find some random plants to eat, they need to understand what plants give them what nutritious. This puts them in a favourable position since their health in itself is becoming an argument for becoming vegan. But if a non-vegan wanted to make the healthiest diet ever, he would have many more options. Fish, eggs, meat, milk - all are products that a non-vegan can consume IN ADDITION to vegan food. Basically, it's impossible to build a bigger house than the guy with more materials and the exact same skills. If a vegan and a non-vegan were equally healthy and conscious about eating healthy food, naturally the non-vegan would eat healthier food. Logic and common sense. A perfect vegan diet cannot compete with a fully perfect diet. The most extreme case would be if both ate the same diet, but that would require every single plant product to be better than every single other product. Yes, vegans are healthier - but that is because of how they manage their diet, not because their diet is inherently better than other diets. 

Pros argument expanded:
Many things would be beneficial to humanity, like getting rid of the middle eastern people and countries - they fight all the time and cannot stop. Does this mean humanity should remove the middle east? Not at all. What about sugar? Snacks? Television? Cities?Computer games? The argument Pro uses is the same argument I could use to prove that humanity should do all sorts of different things. So since Pros argument applies to every problem humanity faces, it has no weight whatsoever. In today's society truth is being defined by the power to communicate opinions - and this is the only reason why veganism is proposed. 



CONCLUSION:

Veganism isn't drastic. Tell me, what IS the solution humanity needs?
But just because the change won't be easy, doesn't mean we can't TRY to make it.
Becoming vegan won’t solve all the problems in the world
It would actually create more problems than it solved.
Veganism is indeed drastic - every big far-stretching solution is drastic. There is no single solution to the world's problems, that is my point. 

We should let people eat what they want, producers produce the people want and scientists study what the people want - it is called freedom: democracy, capitalism and human rights. They created the paradise we live in - better than anything in history. Forcing down an idea like veganism requires the power of the government, even if it is just "slow". People will always eat meat unless there is nothing to buy, and producers will produce unless they are oppressed by the government. To accomplish this plan we must make the government more powerful - possibly ruining the economy by raising taxes even further. We would need to tie together governments, create a semi-committed UN. We have no clue what the government will use such power for other than the intended purpose. Think how much political havoc a "slow plan to abolish unhealthy video games" would cause, then multiply it by ten. 

That is why humanity should not pursue any "best interest" - even if you were correct about everything you said.

Do not make any means of achieving happiness become the new goal  - that is why veganism should remain a personal, not global affair.

If veganism is good - let the people choose to be vegans. The only ideas that need to be forced upon people are the ones that are not convincingly good.



Final words: Veganism should not be a global or planned transition, but a personal choice.

Back to you Pro

SOURCES:

[1]: Common sense
[2]: Common knowledge
[3]: Norwegian common knowledge

You can't use those as sources, because those aren't sources.
Yes, they are. If anybody disagrees with any of our facts they could just Google it in an instant.
Every fact you disagree with I will bring the source. Like this:

Sources:

Good enough?
Round 3
Not published yet
Not published yet