Are we also considering the pounds of plants that the animal had to eat to grow to such a size? I should imagine it takes quite a lot of food to raise a one ton cow for slaughter. At least one ton of plant material as food, right? To produce how many pounds of meat? 750lbs seems reasonable.

So if you had 2750lbs of plant food for yourself, vs just the 750 lbs of meat -- which has more nutrients?

(I do not know the answer myself, but I can see where it could be argued that meat is not more nutritious, pound for pound)

Why is nutrition per pound your metric? Doctors don’t advise that we eat x pounds of food a day. Also this is easily disprovable. A vegan multivitamin is thousands of times more nutritionally dense than meat, but i don’t eat 2 pounds of multivitamins a day.

Pound for pound of CO2 (or water, or other resources) it can not be denied that plants provide more nutrition than meat.

This is like saying pound for pound lead is more dense than iron. It's a useless comparison. Meats have some nutritional content that plants have less of, and plants have some nutritional content that meats have less of. Look up comparisons between beef and broccoli, for example.

Do your beliefs forbid you from having more than 250g of food in your plate at a given time? If not that's not quite relevant.

This really is a vague statement without defining what you mean by 'nutrition'. If you're referring protein, well sort of, however some non meat based products carry plenty, nuts, black beans (15g of protein per cup).. At the same time there are plenty of vitamins / minerals in vegetables that you cannot get from meat. Vitamin C being a key one.

It definitely can and should be denied. Not that it matters, your point is useless anyway.