Acharya Prashant addresses arguments in favor of non-vegetarianism, particularly those raised by a questioner named Mohammad Yunus. The speaker begins by acknowledging that he has recently initiated a conversation on sacrifice and non-vegetarianism, which has sparked a lively and strong discussion with many questions and objections. He believes such dialogues on serious issues are essential and proceeds to address the points raised. The questioner's main arguments are that "one living being is the food of another" (Jeev Jeevasya Bhojanam), that plants are also living beings, and therefore, meat and vegetation are just different names for the same thing. Acharya Prashant refutes these points by questioning the premise. If all living beings are equal and one is food for another, he asks why humans don't eat other humans—their brothers, parents, or even themselves—since they are all living beings. This, he argues, shows that the matter is not so simple. Humans possess consciousness, which allows them to choose what to eat and what not to eat, a capacity not found in animals. He urges the use of this consciousness, pointing out that humans do not eat everything that is technically a living being, like bacteria or the coronavirus. He further dismantles the arguments by highlighting the human ability to make distinctions. He counters the idea that teeth are designed for meat by stating they can also chew one's own flesh, which no one does. Similarly, he dismisses the argument that digestibility justifies consumption, noting that stolen goods or human corpses are also digestible but not eaten. He introduces the term "corpse-eater" (lashahari) for non-vegetarians, emphasizing that while a dog's body is called a corpse, a radish is not, proving that a dog and a radish are not the same. He concludes that one should not desire to be a corpse-eater. While acknowledging that even eating plants involves minimal violence necessary for survival, he states that the level of consciousness in plants is much lower. The violence in killing a conscious animal like a goat or chicken is far greater. Life, he asserts, is meant to reduce the burden of sins, not to increase it for the sake of taste by extinguishing the life of conscious beings.