Instigator / Pro
8
1458
rating
3
debates
0.0%
won
Topic

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

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
3
3
Sources points
2
2
Spelling and grammar points
2
2
Conduct points
1
2

With 2 votes and 1 point ahead, the winner is ...

Benjamin
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
9
1718
rating
41
debates
70.73%
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
Pro
I find it strange that you criticise me so much. I gave you a lot of challenges which you never addressed.

I did not mean to make it seem like I was insulting you. If I was, I apologize.

Also, I commented on literally everything you said, so that's incorrect.

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.

Morality is subjective. The morality I have is from the west, which was influenced by Judeo-Christian values.

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.

Yeah, vegan diets that are done right work, while ones that don't work aren't done right. That is obvious.
Also, so what if people like meat? The south liked slavery, as it gave it a lot of economic growth (especially with cotton). That does not make it right. Also, your comment that we would have to genetically modify humans to have a plant-based diet is absurd. If that is not what you meant, then sorry.

Also, as I said in my first argument, we are not debating whether veganism is healthier than a meat-based diet.

No, I explained why your points against the environment were correct but not conclusive. I accepted the fact that "evil" meat factories do exist.

How could they possibly not be conclusive? Environmental factors that the meat industry imposes on the earth are terrible and must be fixed. Going half the distance when it comes to fixing the problem is not the solution.

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

So you are essentially saying "Kant is a great philosopher. Who are you to question him"? If that isn't what you meant, then please rephrase your sentence.

God / Kant's Philosophy can back up my claim. At least my world view is coherent and not random.

My worldview isn't random. I consider animals of moral value, because of morality that most people hold (Not killing people, torturing people, exploiting people, etc). Holding these moral values for humans but not for animals is cognitive dissonance, just like getting outraged that some boys in the UK smashed some swans eggs and then making an omelette is also cognitive dissonance.

It depends on whether marriage is a thing or not. 
Just joking though XD

That's actually a really good point. Vote con lol.
Jk tho. Vote for who you want.


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. 

I explained that a child kicking me in the balls does not give me a right to kick them to the thirty yarder simply because they cannot comprehend why kicking me in the balls was wrong.
Yes, a child living in a slum IS sad, but imagine if that child lived in that slum house, but at the same time lived next to people who could easily help them, that WOULD be immoral. We could stop exploiting animals are forcing them to live in these conditions, but we decide not to.
If you could live a life where you were separated from your mother at birth , pumped full of drugs to increase your weight, put into a small cage you could not even turn around in, living in nasty and dirty conditions full of diseases, being exploited for your resources, having a band wrapped around your balls so then they decompose off of your living body (And scraped off if necessary), and then finally being murdered in a savage like way, I highly doubt you would want to live that life. Anyone who would want to live that life over no life at all is insane.

I mean, poor conditions, especially when you do not have to live under them is terrible, but not torture.

But I would say your children being separated from you a couple of minutes after they are born is torture


I would also say being put into a macerator at birth is quick torture, but torture nonetheless


Pigs being gassed to death, which takes up to a minute, and the gas acidizing the liquid in their lungs, nostrils, mouth, and throat, making them feel like they are burning alive, is also torture. You can't really argue that feeling like you are burning alive inside your own body isn't torture.

Many other parts of factory farms are, indeed, torture.

Also, I do not agree with your definition of torture. Many psychopaths will kidnap someone and torture them without the need of forcing the person to do something or say something. Because of this, your definition of torture is flawed, because the scenario I said above would not be torture by that definition. Besides, even IF it is not technically torture, gassing sentient beings is still terrible.

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.

My morality is not based on conscientious. It is based on the moral system I was taught (Western Morals). The thing is, though, it is full of cognitive dissonance. Most people on this planet find it wrong to torture, kill, purposely harm, etc a person. The problem with that is that they do not hold that view for animals, which is cognitive dissonance, because they have no good reason to believe a human should not be gassed to death, but have no problem with eating bacon from a factory farm that gassed a pig to death

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.


The thing with simply improving the conditions is that you have to make the government get involved with that heavily, which will probably not happen for decades. All veganism needs is a campaign. Just like with global warming, it wasn't several governments that brought this to the attention of the people, the people brought this to the attention of the government, and now governments all over the world are taking action. Plus, you are talking about genetically modifying animals, which we are only beginning to scratch the surface of genetic engineering. It may seem like we know a lot, but we really don't.

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 thing is, though, we are already making great leaps toward electric vehicles. By 2040, it is estimated by Forbes that more than half of cars on the planet will be electric.
Also, you claim that using crops entirely would destroy the balance between oxygen and carbon dioxide, which is completely incorrect.
For one, there are an estimated 3 trillion trees in the world, so I hardly doubt that crops will tip the scale that much, if at all.
Two, many of our crops are used for animals. The crops in the US ALONE would be able to feed 800,000,000 people. So, if we switched to veganism, we would actually need to use fewer crops.

In conclusion, that statement is completely incorrect.

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?

What do you mean by artificial veganism? I can't find anything about "Artificial veganism" on the internet

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.

It is true we would have to breed these farm animals out of existence, as the majority of them would never be able to survive in the wild. Also, I am not saying that we should put animals over humans. A zoonotic disease that is deadlier than the coronavirus could very well spring about, and if that happens, that could hurt our progress significantly, and then it would take a long time for the world to recover. Because of this, then yes, we would have to breed these domesticated animals out of existence for our OWN survival.
Also, zoonotic diseases do not only apply to humans. They could very well endanger wildlife.

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.

Again, my morality comes from the west, as does yours. But a problem with western morality is that it is full of cognitive dissonance, as it does not give sentient beings that same moral consideration, and doesn't even have good reasoning to do so.
Also, even if my reasoning for morality is not satisfactory for you, the risk of zoonotic viruses, increased plastic pollution, contributing to global warming, risk of superbugs, desertification, deforestation everywhere, mass deforestation in the Amazon, many children missing out on antibiotics because they are given to animals, and more should be reasoning enough for humanity to transition toward veganism.

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".

You speak about how we would have to get the government involved with veganism, but we would also have to get the government involved with any of your solutions.

Also, how is veganism extreme? Since when was calling out cognitive dissonance extreme? Is wanting to get a couple of steps closer to fixing MANY of the problems factory farms contribute to, extremism? I am not saying that if we transition to veganism, the world will become full of rainbows and sunshine, and all the problems will be fixed. What I am saying, though, is that if the world transitioned to veganism, we would be MUCH closer to fixing these problems then we are now.

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.  

That is like saying that we should not have campaigned against climate change and plastic pollution because if they are actually problems, people will notice them anyway. A reason why many people are advocating to fix these problems is that they didn't know it was such a serious issue before, but because of organisations and campaigns, now they do.
Besides, nonetheless, even though I don't like the solution you just proposed, that would still bring about the change that I am arguing for.

Also, it isn't according to me. I didn't just wake up one day and decide "You know what? Veganism is probably better for me". I instead did my research and found that it is healthier.

Like I said in my very first argument, you can get every single vitamin and protein that you can from a meat diet while being vegan except for b12, which you can still get from supplements, and some vegan foods and actually adding b12 into them, such as Impossible Foods.


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.

Yes, that is true. Like literally every other diet, the vegan diet needs you to balance it. Even meat diets need to be balanced and well organized if you want it to not make you at high risk of heart disease and other things.
Also, things found in fish, eggs, meat, and milk can all be found in a vegan diet, so your logic makes no sense.

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. 

Of course, we wouldn't massacre 246 million people to get rid of the problems they cause. Also, even if we did do that, that would take more resources than the world turning vegan would take. Also, just because you are not fixing every problem, doesn't mean you can't fix one. That is the same logic as doing nothing because you can't fix the problem entirely.

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. 

Again, people brought climate change and plastic pollution to the attention of the government, the government did not bring it to the attention of the people.

Also, by that logic, I suppose we should also allow people to continue to contribute to climate change and plastic pollution. I suppose we should do nothing about it, since its a very drastic approach.

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

So, what you mean is, we shouldn't fix ANY problems?

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.

I never said we should force people to be vegan, just like we should not force people to buy a Tesla or buy solar panels for their homes.

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:

I mean, you technically COULD use those as sources, but that doesn't sit well with anyone. Racism is bad. Why? Common sense. That isn't enough to explain to a KKK member than a black person isn't inferior. I have to give actual proof and debunk things that they say.

Also, on your link on the definition of torture, Oxford provides another definition
"Great physical or mental suffering or anxiety."


Other arguments on morality

Even if you do not care about the blatant disregard for morals that the meat industry shows because they are showing that lack of humanity for animals, then let's review some moral things regarding humans.

The majority of antibiotics are being used on animals, and this number does not seem to be slowing down. These antibiotics could instead be used for humans instead.


The risk of superbugs with humans is also a big ethical concern, especially for third world countries, which don't have antibiotics.


Livestock uses almost 1/3 of the land on the planet, which is a big concern not only because of deforestation (Which harms but humans and animals) but also because some of this land (Not all, but some) could be used for human use

Livestock also contributes to desertification, which hurt locals in the area.


Many of our crops are used for animals. If we used these crops for humans, this could probably feed the entire population of Earth, even in the year 2050, where it is estimated we will have 9.7 billion people.


Factory farms can poison local waters, which harm humans and animals alike






Conclusion: It is still in the best interest of humanity to transition to veganism. Con gave a harder fight than I thought he would, so I thank him for that




Vote Pro

Con
 Thank You con.

Con gave a harder fight than I thought he would, so I thank him for that
Thank You very much. I could say the same about you. Nevertheless, I shall now destroy Your argument.




CLEARANCE ABOUT WHAT THE BURDEN OF PROOF MEANS:

It is in the best interest of humanity that we attempt to transition toward veganism
So we are talking about a transition towards veganism - not an already vegan world.


I never said we should force people to be vegan
Fair enough. But when you say that humanity should transition towards veganism you are talking about a change on a global, not personal, level.

"humanity should transition towards veganism" - Why? This implies that the world should override personal actions.
You might say that this transition can happen on a personal level - but that is not correct. You yourselves said this about "making the conditions better":

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
But I could say the same about humanity turning vegans:
  1. They never will
  2. When people start becoming vegans, fish and meat will become cheaper (economic theory [1]) - which will mean that people will eat more meat and fish.

Had you instead claimed: 
"It would be beneficial for humanity if many people chose to become vegans, or at least eat much less meat"
That would have been both correct and sound. But if humanity is to "transition", then humanity - not the individual - must take action.
This would be to override personal choice, disturbing the global market and would include destroying many major economic sectors, including the fishing industry many countries like Norway relly on. Norway, for example, would have its entire food production rendered useless, as only a tiny part of the country can sustain agriculture.

This is Pros comment regarding the fact that transporting meat to Norway would be less sustainable than fishing in Norway:
you never actually disproved my point, instead saying it would be harder to ship food.
This is the entire point: transitioning towards veganism could be beneficial for countries like the USA, but not for countries like Norway. That is why the resolution is wrong, not because veganism lack benefits, but because humanity is not a whole. No "fit all" solution will work, not even veganism. Instead, I quote myself:

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
The market forces[1], make it nearly impossible for a major industry to stop existing - especially one so powerful and basic as the meat industry. If we assume this does not matter, what about the fishing industry? There is no way possible that this industry can be removed without government interference. There is no vegan alternative to fishing regarding how we use the oceans, and the fishing industry would thrive unless stopped by the government. I want to quote Pro:

Just like with global warming, it wasn't several governments that brought this to the attention of the people, the people brought this to the attention of the government, and now governments all over the world are taking action
Global warming was brought to the attention of governments by the people - but ultimately governments had to set common goals, restrict multiple industries and generally control the economy and the people. The only reason we allowed this was simple: climate change is a global problem that had just recently been discovered.

So the only way Pro wins is by proving that:

"The production of non-vegan food is such a big problem that a global transition towards veganism is worth all the problems it would create"
I do not agree. The problems outweigh the benefits.




PROS ADMISSION:

Pro has continuously tried to force upon me the idea that veganism could be implemented without force:

I never said we should force people to be vegan
But now he has contradicted himself:

Also, so what if people like meat? The south liked slavery, as it gave it a lot of economic growth (especially with cotton). That does not make it right.
The government had to stop slavery - not any campaign. Also, pro admits that meat is something people want, but he wants people to stop eating. More evidence:

we would also have to get the government involved with any of your solutions.
ALSO, government interference has been admitted to be necessary. My "improve conditions" solution would require government interference - cause only that solution is not profitable for the businesses.

In effect, pro has admitted that he is willing to let 

the government start controlling the economy.
as I said earlier.

But this raises a lot of ethical questions: a lot of people relly on the meat industry for jobs - and as he admitted, people want to eat food and must be forced to stop. By closing down the meat and fishing industry pro wants to INDIRECTLY force people to become vegans. He has thus contradicted himself. On one hand, he promises that the change will be free and just a civil campaign. On the other hand, he shows us that the government must be involved by comparing it to slavery. Based on this admission we can conclude that:
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.
It is clear that Pro wants the government to be involved - even though he had a hard time directly admitting so. Thus, his claim about a "slow" transition is hypocrisy.

In conclusion: my fear has been confirmed, and my critique of pros transition has been well deserved - it would compromise basic human rights.

My point still stands. I quote myself: There are many solutions to the same problems, and veganism is too drastic and too radical to be the solution humanity needs.





DEFENCE AND REBUTTALS:

Also, you claim that using crops entirely would destroy the balance between oxygen and carbon dioxide, which is completely incorrect.
If it is, I apologize. But essentially pro uses the same argument to attack meat production: 14% of climate emissions come from domestic animals. If that small percentage is important then why would not a small disturbance in the balance between plants and animals be important as well. This point might be correct but I highly doubt it.


Also, by that logic, I suppose we should also allow people to continue to contribute to climate change and plastic pollution. I suppose we should do nothing about it, since its a very drastic approach.
Climate change is a very great problem with near-universal acceptance. The benefits of defeating climate change would outweigh the cost of doing so, according to most sources and most people you can possibly find. The debate is not about "should we fight climate change", but rather about "how should we do it". I also find it strange that you compare the two: meat and climate change. Turning vegans would at most remove 14% of our yearly emissions - but would be a far more drastic process:

Drastic: Likely to have a strong or far-reaching effect; radical and extreme.[https://www.lexico.com/definition/drastic]

Food production is a far more basic need than energy - and there is only a single alternative: plants. Therefore - it is way more drastic than fighting climate change.

Also, by comparing the two - pro admits that by "we attempt to transition", he means a global plan of action - not a personal exposure to campaigns.

So, what you mean is, we shouldn't fix ANY problems?
Pro makes a straw man of my argument. I mean that humanity is not a single entity - and very few problems are worthy of being solved by an international effort. 
So far we have only found 14 problems that are worthy of the title "UN - major goal".Veganism is not one of them, not by a far stretch.



I mean, you technically COULD use those as sources, but that doesn't sit well with anyone.
I never intended to win using sources. After all, you have made a bold claim and you have the burden of proof. Common sense is perfect for destroying theoretical solutions to nonexistent or irrelevant problems. When I come with a controversial claim, I use sources. Extensive usage of Sources have been proven to make an article boring - but I respect Pros dedication to maximising the number of sources. But I do not need sources, Pro has already provided more than enough information for both of us to discuss.



Also, on your link on the definition of torture, Oxford provides another definition
"Great physical or mental suffering or anxiety."
Critique accepted - sorry for overlooking that one. Still - that definition of torture does not mention anyone as the reason for torture happening. This is a null-point.



Even if you do not care about the blatant disregard for morals that the meat industry shows because they are showing that lack of humanity for animals
Who said I do not care? I never said that - I said we should improve the conditions. I said that animals are not a part of "morality" - and society agrees with me. Pro disregarded my solution on the basis of it requiring government interference - but completely ignored the same problem with his own solution.



Factory farms can poison local waters, which harm humans and animals alike
So does chemicals used in agriculture.



Of course, we wouldn't massacre 246 million people to get rid of the problems they cause.
Of course, we wouldn't destroy the meat industry to get rid of the problems it causes. In both cases, the cost is greater than the reward. 



the solution you just proposed, that would still bring about the change that I am arguing for.
Humanity would not become vegans by my solution - personal freedom - People are different, not everyone wants to be vegan - and Companies are happy to serve meat or anything consumers want.



That is like saying that we should not have campaigned against climate change and plastic pollution because if they are actually problems, people will notice them anyway.
Campaigns did not fight climate change, governments do. Climate change is an exception as the reward is greater than the cost - even on a global scale.



the risk of zoonotic viruses, increased plastic pollution, contributing to global warming, risk of superbugs, desertification, deforestation everywhere, mass deforestation in the Amazon, many children missing out on antibiotics because they are given to animals, and more should be reasoning enough for humanity to transition toward veganism.
It seems like you think that placing a lot of problems in a list, even though they individually are not caused solely by meat production, proves your point. That is an emotional argument - just like your ethical concerns. 


What do you mean by artificial veganism? I can't find anything about "Artificial veganism" on the internet
1) you need to add a supplement in b12, and 2) a healthy vegan diet was not possible before modern times as it requires scientific knowledge about food. and nutritions.


In conclusion, that statement is completely incorrect.
Not at all. Science will improve animal production as well as transportation. I will prove that later.


All veganism needs is a campaign
??? You admitted yourself that meat production is like slavery: wanted by the people, and only removed by the government.
Vegan companies already run multiple campaigns - but people understand they are commercials so they are not effective.


I mean, poor conditions, especially when you do not have to live under them is terrible, but not torture.
Yes, they are, according to the expanded definition you found: "Great physical or mental suffering or anxiety." But still, slum people in India are not immoral by having kids.




I could go on and on and on - but let us continue with my opponents 3 pillars.




MORALITY:

First of all, I must remind you that every argument from Pro regarding morality has been rebutted by me. Even if animals deserved moral rights, veganism would not be moral. Why? The first human right is the right to life - freedom is the second right - none would apply to a vegan treatment of domestic animals:

It is true we would have to breed these farm animals out of existence, as the majority of them would never be able to survive in the wild.
Since pro never proved that animals want to escape or die instead of being eaten, his argument is flawed. He also disregards some meat industries and also fishing - none of them tortures animals. Those animals would also suffer from the extinction Pro admits must happen.

But now let us talk about the lacking understanding of morality Pro shows. First a brief definition from Oxford.

Morality: Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.[4]
Actions are measured up to a standard to check if they are good or wrong. That standard must be based on authority.


There are four major authorities on which people base morality:
  • God, gods or religion in general
  • Norms and laws in society
  • Philosophy and logic - like Kant
  • Personal preferences - which is the equivalent of having no morality

Pro has rejected the existence of God or gods - he is not basing his morality on religion.
Pro does not base his morality on society - after all, he calls it "cognitive dissonance" when society interprets western values differently from him.

What about philosophy?
So you are essentially saying "Kant is a great philosopher. Who are you to question him"?
I said that Kant is what nonreligious people often base their morality on. Pro rejected Kant's logic by saying:

That is terrible logic.
But never ads his own logic for why morality exist or why it matters. I have asked Pro to tell me which moral school of thought he follows.
Pro has failed multiple times to add any alternative authority or logic to his moral claims - thus we can assume he has no philosophical reason for his morality.

Morality is subjective.
The KKK person would definitely agree. Pro and the KKK person would come along just fine - if this is indeed pros attitude.

Nothing personal here, but by saying this, Pro says that morality does not exist - morality is just your personal preferences.
Do not take this as an insult, but "subjective morality" is what every dictator like Hitler, Stalin and Mao used as an excuse to do what they did. The only difference is that pro wants to add more moral rules instead of removing ones he does not like. Both "holocaust is immoral" and "meat production is immoral" are equally invalid under subjective morality. Pro, by your own admission, killing and torturing animals and/or humans is not objectively wrong - you simply do not like that kind of behaviour. 

The morality I have is from the west, which was influenced by Judeo-Christian values.
Those values, and every other major group of values, accept the killing of animals.

Pro has rejected every basis for morality: God,  society and lastly philosophy.

Every moral argument from Pro is invalid as they are based on his own subjective interpretation of western values - not any authority or philosophy other people can agree on.




I have hereby destroyed 1/3 of Pros argument.  Also, every other argument from Pro needs"morality" to be a thing, so all of his arguments are severely weakened after this.



HEALTH:

Yes, that is true. Like literally every other diet, the vegan diet needs you to balance it.
Pro has admitted that vegan diets are not any different from other diets. The reason why vegans are healthier than non-vegans is that all vegans must balance their diet. On the other hand, non-vegans do not have such an urgent need to create a diet, as generally meat, eggs, milk and other products include all needed nutrients naturally. That is why a non-vegan diet is more natural, one does not need to use a scientific diet which among other things includes artificial substitutes for vitamin b12.


I am sure I and Con can both agree that veganism/vegetarianism is healthier for the average person. 
I actually proved logically that a non-vegan diet would be at least equally healthy as a vegan one - but most certainly it would actually be more healthy. 


Animals use up 70% of antibiotics in the US, and that number is only INCREASING.
Animals use up antibiotics in order to be healthy for eating - so this argument is not actually worth anything. If Pro could PROve that the antibiotics would be used in places where it's needed this argument would still not be valid: the solution would be to give Africans Money for buying antibiotics.


These antibiotics could instead be used for humans instead.
Removing the meat industry will not automatically mean that antibiotics will be sent to Africa for free. Market forces yet again [1]. This argument is emotional, not factual. Even though the facts provided by pro are correct, pro never explained his Logic or how he came to his conclusion. Pro should have proven that if the meat industry got destroyed the antibiotics would have been put to better use - but he hasn't. If anything it could just as well add to the over usage of medicine that creates superbugs.


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.
I agree that the danger of superbugs is a major concern for humanity, but does animals really pose such a threat? Why could you not give me an example other than the coronaVIRUS (not bacteria)? Superbugs are immune to antibiotics as a result of their evolution - but they still die if heated up, which is exactly what we do to meat before eating them. Any zoonic superbugs die in that process, so in fact this problem is nonexistent. Zoonic superbugs are no threat at all - which indeed restates the validity of my first rebuttal:
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.
The fact that I can just quote myself over and over again and still keep the original weight is more than enough evidence for why my common sense is a valid Source.


Does zoonic diseases really pose a danger? Yes, but they are not necessarily caused by domestic animals[5]:

Work by Leendertz, including interviews with locals and environmental sampling, suggests that the outbreak started in bats that lived in a hollow tree where the children used to play. The tree was burned down days before his arrival and no Ebola virus was detected in nearby bats, which he says highlights the difficulties of pinning down an outbreak’s beginnings.
So in fact, this claim: "zoonic diseases is a major concern caused by meat production" is not true, at most, it is highly speculative. Pros claim is an argument from fear.

A zoonotic disease that is deadlier than the coronavirus could very well spring about
Again, this is highly speculative, and few if any zoonic disease has come from domestic animals. This is an argument from fear



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.
This argument is purely emotional - and is thus a null point. Pro failed to add logic for why and how the medicine would be put to better use.


Because of this, then yes, we would have to breed these domesticated animals out of existence for our OWN survival.
Also, zoonotic diseases do not only apply to humans. They could very well endanger wildlife.
Making animals go extinct is more dangerous to animals than animal diseases. Again an invalid argument.



In conclusion, there is no significant weight to Pros health concerns - most will not be solved by veganism but rather innovation in medicine and science.

I have now destroyed 2/3 of Pros argument.



ENVIRONMENT:

This is Pros strongest point, as he admits himself. But he does not understand that there are different terms to describe environmental effects.
The word "sustainable" is nonexistent in Pros argument. This is reflected in his disregard for the problems veganism would pose to the world economy. Transporting plants from around the world is not a sustainable idea when we can produce fish and meat in our own country - this is true especially for my country, Norway. Pro replies by pointing at future innovation that will make transportation more green - but the same argument goes for meat production - GMO testing will improve this field as well, as I will prove.

My argument will be a rebuttal of Pros argument and will be formatted in this manner:

A lot of pros arguments can be summarized as such: "crops use our available space more efficiently":

Livestock uses almost 1/3 of the land on the planet, which is a big concern 
Livestock also contributes to desertification, which hurt locals in the area.
26% of the worlds land is used for livestock grazing. That is almost a third of the land on this planet.
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?
This could possibly be an argument for Pescetarianism. However, when talking about veganism, we would need to leave 2/3 of the worlds are the oceans, alone. What is the point of trying to use dry land as effective as possible if we ignore the oceans? There is none, except the arbitrary danger of "plastic pollution" - which indeed is relevant but not conclusive in any way. In fact, one of the 14 most important duties of humanity according to the UN is to:

Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development [6]
UN is against veganism -is this not a good argument. This already accepted goal of humanity completely contradicts the idea of "veganism" as a solution to other problems.
Again, Pro is right about pointing out environmental problems caused by the fishing industry but completely misses the real solutions. Humanity will achieve nothing by pursuing a theoretical solution to practical problems. Just like communism is a nice theory that failed in practice, veganism would as well - as both imply that all humans have the same interests and same goals.



Livestock also contributes to desertification, which hurt locals in the area.
Desertification is now being reversed by Israelian technology [2]. Also, expanding crop production, as a result of not fishing, would create the same problem.


In the future, domestic animals will be much more efficient and also more sustainable [3]. In fact, the reason why animals are not cleaner and safer today is that it took a long time for governments to allow "immoral" GMO testing on animals, while they allowed the same trick on plants.

 Plus, you are talking about genetically modifying animals, which we are only beginning to scratch the surface of genetic engineering. It may seem like we know a lot, but we really don't.
I do not know why Pro thinks this is an argument for his case - since really it just affirms my position. Science will solve the problems meat production causes before veganism could even be attempted on a national scale. In fact, I bet science will solve every problem humanity faces - as it has always done in the past.



I will sum of my offensive arguments against veganism with regards to the environment:
  • Veganism would increase the usage of dry land due to the removal of the fishing industry - this argument is supported by the weight of the UN
  • Many countries can only produce meat and fish sustainably - importing crops would not be sustainable
  • Organic agriculture requires organic fertilizers, which require animal (or human) poop
  • Hunting and fishing can gather food without destroying big areas of nature like farms do


In conclusion: The optimal production of food worldwide would not be vegan - veganism introduces a new set of problems which pro fails to address or realize.

I have now destroyed 3/3 of pros argument.


SUMMARY:

Pro claimed that "It is in the best interest of humanity that we attempt to transition toward veganism" - which means: "humanity as a whole should turn vegan".

I forced Pro to make admission after admission, and ultimately I disproved his entire argument. The logic from pro failed to connect hist facts and his claims.

Therefore, the final verdict is as follows:

  • The problems Pro pointed out are relevant and real
  • Pros arguments are emotionally charged instead of being logically constructed - I tore them down
  • Veganism would create more problems than solutions
  • All of the problems will be solved using science in the near future
  • Veganism contradicts a lot of humanity's already accepted goals
  • Ultimately, it is not in the best interest of humanity that we transition towards veganism

FINAL WORDS:

I must admit, Pro has provided an extraordinary amount of facts and links - 32 in total. I only provided 11. But after all Pro has the burden of proof. I have never actually rejected any of Pro facts - Instead I have proven that to most if not all problem he pointed out, there is a simpler and better solution than veganism. In addition to that, I have proved that veganism would create a lot of new problems which Pro has not accounted for. I have destroyed pros entire argument, and only small pieces of his claims have survived or never been addressed. When a 16-year-old boy with nothing but common sense could destroy pros argument, it is because grand theoretical solutions never work in practice - especially "one-fits-all" solutions like veganism. Pro used a lot of sources but failed to provide a logical basis for his conclusion - meanwhile I used sources minimally while using common sense to its full extent - and removed the foundations of his arguments. 

I am the ultimate victor of this debate - Pro failed to prove his claim to be true.

In conclusion: A transition towards veganism would not be beneficial for humanity - therefore, veganism is not a goal humanity should pursue


Vote Con


Thank you pro for debating me - it has been an informative and enjoyable experience. No disrespect intended.


SOURCES:



In fact, a general rule of debate is that if someone claims a certain thing to be true - it is true until rejected or contradicted. So my claims are valid unless contradicted by Pro, therefore my common sense is indeed a valid source - until Pro uses a better source to contradict it, which he did at most 1 time.