If you’re a vegetarian, odds are you’ve checked off a couple of those Vegetarian Bingo boxes. If you’re not a vegetarian—first off welcome, I’m glad you’re here—you’ve likely said at least one of those things if you’ve ever tried to debate a vegetarian.

The purpose of this post is to go through several of these arguments and see where omnivores either make critical mistakes in logic, or misunderstand the intentions of vegetarianism. The purpose of this post isn’t to tell omnivores how to argue against vegetarians, just which arguments are bad.

1. Humans are Carnivores / Our Ancestors Ate Meat

There’s no doubting that early human ancestors ate meat. In fact, meat likely contributed to humans evolving into the species we recognize today. But our ancestors did many things that we no longer do today, such as relying only on hunting and gathering as a source of food, or forcefully taking a mate (okay, so some people still do those things).

But let’s pretend for a second that we should continue to do something just because our ancestors did it. What did our ancestors really eat? Well, as it turns out, early human ancestors were nearly all vegetarian. This may be hard to believe for those of us who grew up with images of cavemen as large, muscular, hairy men who chew on giant chicken legs.

The logical response to this argument is that argumentum ad antiquitatem, or “appeal to antiquity”, is a logical fallacy. Just because something is a tradition, or has been the norm for a long time, doesn’t mean we should continue to do it. Relying on this argument will only make it seem like you’ve backed yourself into a fallacious corner.

And it’s simply not true that humans are carnivores. As I will detail later on in this article, we are perfectly capable of thriving in environments without meat.

2. Where do you get your protein?

While not necessarily an argument, this is another common question vegetarians get. In case you missed it, I already wrote an article that lists good protein sources for vegetarians. This question is likely based on the assumption that vegetarians and vegans are protein deficient. But data shows that vegetarians and vegans average 70% more protein than the recommended daily value.

Vegetarians have many options for protein sources. There’s beans and rice, which together make a complete protein. There’s tofu and other soybean products. There’s nuts and legumes. There’s dairy. And there’s other high-protein vegetables, including peas and spinach. Getting enough protein is no problem.

3. What about the plants you’re killing?

There is no evidence indicating that plants have a capacity to suffer. They have no central nervous system. They have no way to transmit a message of pain to any central processor that can interpret the feeling of pain.

There is evidence that plants can communicate to each other, both above and below ground. But is this evidence of a capacity to suffer? The short answer is an emphatic “no”. Reacting to physical stimuli by releasing a chemical does not indicate a capacity to suffer, it indicates an ability to react to physical stimuli, which we know most living things are capable of doing.

Also, if the intention of this argument is to make vegetarians feel bad for eating so many defenseless plants, one should consider how many plants livestock animals are fed. According to Cornell University, livestock animals consume five times as much grain as is consumed directly by the entire American population. In America, a cow needs to eat between 82.5 lbs and 330 lbs of hay for every one pound of protein they produce. Talk about a plant genocide.

4. Vegetarians are nutrient deficient / weak

This one shouldn’t require disproving. Say, “(insert group name) are (insert negative adjective)”, and you’re probably wrong. It’s not good to generalize any population of people. Our eating and exercising habits are all wildly different.

I already wrote an article on this, but vegetarians are no less healthy than omnivores. In fact, there is some evidence that indicates vegetarians are on average healthier than non-vegetarians, but the difference can’t only be attributed to the diet. Vegetarians are also more likely to participate in other healthy activities, which could contribute to the difference.

But the key point here is that vegetarians are perfectly capable of living a healthy life, and they are actually less deficient in some key nutrients than their omnivorous peers.

5. If we don’t breed them/eat them, they’ll go extinct/overpopulate

If we don’t:

Breed them-

If we don’t continue to breed livestock animals, it is true that they will eventually go extinct, since they rely on humans to continue their genetic lineage. Without massive breeding programs, animals like the modern cow or pig wouldn’t exist. But does that mean it would be cruel to make them go extinct, if it means saving their species from a fate of perpetual suffering?

It’s impossible for something that is never born to feel pain or suffering. From a utilitarian standpoint, the extinction of an animal whose entire species is condemned to a life of pain and suffering would be a net win. To think otherwise would be to say that we are better off perpetuating their suffering.

Eat them-

The other side of this argument is that if we don’t eat the animals, they will overpopulate and wreak environmental havoc. This argument assumes that the demand for meat will drop to zero immediately, and that we will have nowhere to put the animals currently being farmed. A more realistic scenario, assuming everyone did become vegetarian, would be that the demand for meat would slowly decrease.

The entire population of the world, or even just the U.S. for that matter, would not become vegetarian overnight. It would take years, even decades, to accomplish such a feat. During the time that demand would decrease, farmers would be able to adjust their breeding programs and head counts to reflect current demands. It’s not as if the entire population will become vegetarian overnight, leaving us with billions of livestock animals to find homes for.

This is the last argument I will examine, since I don’t consider “Bacon tho” an argument. However, there are some vegetarian critiques that I didn’t get a chance to address. If you can think of any others, or if you want to challenge one of my analyses, be sure to send me an email detailing the argument and whether or not you believe it. What makes it appealing? How have you responded to it, or what responses have you gotten from it?

You may feel clever when you pull one of these arguments out in a debate, but I can assure you we’ve heard them all before. Many of them rely on misinformation or stereotypes that are simply false, and others rely on fallacies or other poor reasoning. If you eat meat and want to debate a vegetarian, avoiding these arguments may just help you win.

Thanks for listening to this vegetarian’s opinion. And in case you missed it, be sure to check out my article detailing the main reasons to go vegetarian.