By utilitarian standards, Veganism is morally good.

My argument is pretty apparent just from the title, but I'll clarify it here.

Utilitarianism is a system of moral ethics that says that whatever action does the most good is the best action. 

Veganism is morally superior because it creates much less pain and death than eating meat.

When you eat meat, you must account for the good that it gives you. You feel generally pretty good because the meat generally tastes pretty good, and sometimes you feel very good because the meat tastes very good. The problem is that the pleasure you feel from the meat is counterweighted by the animals death.

Some people try to counter this by saying that animals are dumb enough to not matter as much as humans, but they still have the ability to feel pain and emotion. But most importantly, they are evolutionarily made so that they fear and dislike death. All animals have a fear of death just like we humans do, and so even if the animal is dumber, it still deserves its right to life as much as humans do.

The right to life of the animal outweighs the pleasure you get from eating the meat to result in a net loss of good put into the world, and so it is morally bad by utilitarian means.

But Veganism has a whole other part to it. You are also not allowed to eat any product that comes from an animal, like dairy or eggs. This is because the animals that produce these are deprived of their free will, and are often kept cooped up in cages just to produce these things. Also, when they become too old to produce milk or other products, they are slaughtered for their meat. Therefore, that pain is more than the good of you eating the food, so it is not morally desirable.

Do you know what happens to animals in nature?

That's a classic fallacy. Just because something happens a lot doesn't make it moral. 

I'd respond more, but my opponent hasn't really given me anything to go of, so I guess I'll just end it here?

How do you respond to this:

"If all people became vegans, all currently farmed animals would have to be released in nature where most would get eaten alive and die."

They wouldn't have to be released. Morally it would be best for them to still be cared for like pets, just not killed or used for their products. I know that sounds unrealistic, and I assure you that it is, but it's still utilitarian speaking, moral, so my argument still stands.

Anyways, whoever decides to vote on this, my opponent has published two sentences in two arguments, and I have adequately responded to both their rebuttals, so Vote Pro!

Oh okay