Both sides suck at arguing this and all it does is make both sides insufferable. Meat eaters like to point out things like protein deficiency, and high amounts of salts and sugars in meat substitutes. Vegans like to point out the saturated fats, cancer rates, and green house emissions. Problem is you’re both right.

From the article

The studies authors are calling for “greater nuance” when it comes to discussing the healthiness of plant-based alternatives, as there is considerable disparity between categories in terms of health.

“Grouping all plant-based alternatives into a single category is an unhelpful strategy for encouraging a shift away from meat and towards more plant-rich diets as it hides a wide variety of options with differing nutrition and health profiles within the plant-based alternative category,” the authors wrote.

While the study acknowledged that plant-based meat alternatives can be a “useful stepping stone” for encouraging people to shift their diets, they stressed that the less processed alternatives – notably beans and grains – offer “the greatest number of co-benefits.”

Personally I’m not going to stop eating meat but I’m fine with eating less of it or lab grown after a while (though I’m worried about what the industry would look like on a mass scale). But calling for things like moving all livestock subsidies to meat alternatives and claiming all meat substitutes are inherently healthier is just naive, reactionary, and lack nuance. Discussions between vegans and carnivores go exactly how you expect most internet debates to go.