If you want to make a statement like this, don't bother unless you have evidence.
It's also usually better to frame it around the evidence, like "this study from UCLA found that higher consumption of animal products led to decreased testosterone levels". This way, the discussion will be focused on the evidence or the conclusion you drew from it.
See how I didn’t need a citation?
It’s because the facts are not only well-understood, but a river of citation is ready to flow for you, and you would have to dig for verifiable evidence. You could pull up a youtube video, and watch facts unfold, as real world events from the past.
“My pets love me. I know this is true because I see it in them every day.”
You know what? Possible. But you couldn’t offer a citation, if you wanted to. And on top of that, there’s no easy way to discern what goes on inside an animal’s mind, or whether the situation changed and the statement no longer holds up.
“Animal products cause problems for those who consume them.”
Is a broad statement, enough to be useless.
“It’s been found that consuming animal products is associated with this specific problem.”
Better, but says who? And associated does not indicate cause and effect. It doesn’t even indicate a direct relationship.
“Consuming animal products causes this specific problem.”
How? Under what conditions? What’s the mechanism? Who can replicate these results? Why is it not universally applicable, when we can look back on history, and point to people living over 100 years, without encountering the specific problems mentioned?
Given! Now, hop along your merry way!
This is something that baffles me. The biggest, strongest mammals are herbivorous - elephant, bull, bison... Even the best carnivorous animals meditate for a few hours and seek divine help before messing with these guys.
Why is eating grass, not a manly-man activity?
Not really - for example most “manly-men” can agree heavy drinking decreases testosterone levels.