Our instructor usually gives us some arguments we then have to paraphrase and use in our examination essay. If you do not know how to paraphrase, have a look at the E-Learning Module 'Paraphrasing in English'.

Below are the sources we were given. I usually read them and then mark them as for- or against- arguments (killing animals for food).

against
Meat production involves the killing of billions of animals worldwide.
Cf. https://www.boell.de/sites/default/files/2019-10/fleischatlas_2018_V.pdf

for
Animals cannot live in the world ethically, cognitively, and critically in those superior human ways. There is no moral reason not to eat animals that have no morals. 
Holmes Rolston III. (1988): Environmental Ethics. Philadelphia : Temple University Press, 1988. 

for
How ought animals to be treated? My general answer is that humans ought to "treat animals naturally." The use should be natural, basic to animal and human ecology, continuous with the natural processes on which culture is superimposed. The use should not be above the baseline of pain that characterizes natural systems, but it may be continuous with it. The use should not cause pointless pain. The use should include appropriate respect for intrinsic, instrumental, and systemic values in nature.
Rolston III, Holmes (1989): "Treating Animals Naturally?" in: Between the Species: Vol. 5: Iss. 3, Article 4. DOI: https://doi.org10.15368/bts.1989v5n3.2 

against
In many parts of the world, people suffer from hunger and starvation. The world could feed more human beings if we ate the corn ourselves.
Thomas Kastner, Maria Jose Ibarrola Rivas, Wolfgang Koch, and Sanderine Nonhebel PNAS May 1, 2012 109 (18) 6868-6872; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1117054109

for
^{Alexander et al. (2016). Alexander, P., Brown, C., Arneth, A., Finnigan, J., & Rounsevell, M. D. (2016). Human appropriation of land for food: the role of diet. Global Environmental Change, 41, 88-98. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S09593780163023 70?via%3Dihub#bib0330}

for
The 4Ns – that is, the belief that eating meat is natural, normal, necessary, and nice –are common rationalizations people use to defend their choice of eating meat. Studies demonstrated that the 4N classification captures the vast majority (83%–91%) of justifications people naturally offer in defense of eating meat.
^{Jared Piazza et al.: "Rationalizing meat consumption. The 4Ns" in: Appetite 91 (2015) 114–128 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.04.011}

against
The livestock sector plays an important role in climate change as it is responsible for 14.5 percent of human-induced greenhous gas emissions. Beef and cattle milk production account for the majority of emissions, respectively contributing 41 and 20 percent of the sector’s emissions.
^{Pierre Gerber et al. Tackling Climate Change Through Livestock: A Global Assessment of Emissions and Mitigation Opportunities, FAO (2013), Rome (www.fao.org/3/a/-i3437e.pdf)}

for
What counts as a good enough reason for causing pain will depend largely on what we think about the moral status of animals. [...] I argue that sentience is not sufficient for moral status. Thus, although animals experience pain as it is physically bad, their experience of it is not in itself morally bad. They are harmed in feeling pain, but this harm is not of a moral kind. Since animals lack moral status, it is not wrong to eat meat, even if this is not essential to nutrition.
^{Hsiao, T. In Defense of Eating Meat. JAgricEnvironEthics 28, 277–291 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-015-9534-2}

against
The modern world needs a new morality that is consistent with the implications of Darwinism. Painism is based on the central idea that it is usually wrong to cause suffering to others. All things capable of experiencing suffering should be included within the scope of such a morality. To exclude nonhuman animals is to be guilty of speciesism.
^{Abridged from: Richard D. Ryder and Peter Singer: Speciesism, Painism and Happiness: A Morality for the Twenty-First Century. Andrews UK Ltd., 2011.}

against
An interesting experiment was done by Donald Broom. When a group of female calves saw their own improvements in performing an action to get food, they jumped and kicked and galloped down to get the reward, behaviours that suggest strongly that they not only anticipated the pleasure of the coming reward, but were also taking pleasure in their own role in making it happen. It seems they were aware of their accomplishment. […] These are experiments, […] about what […] is going on in cattle's minds. […] There are massive similarities. The amygdala, the cerebellum, the thalamus which are all involved in processing pain in us, are all found in cattle.
^{MacMahan, Jeff (2015): https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34541077}