debate

@mountain_tiger now your just straight up lying this was the debate proposal you responded to "up for a veganism debate on the grounds of ethics just name a trait or series of traits that animals lack that allows you to take away their moral consideration" never did i say "meat is never ok to consume", because i don't believe it is never ok to consume you started out by saying 'they would eat me so ill eat them', which i have proven time and time again in this debate is not the case, because you're eating herbivores that youv never even encountered you lost and your out of excuses so your running away which is fine, but atleast bow out a lil more graciously kek

@momoichi You and I debated on whether it was okay to eat animals, and I remained consistent along that topic. Even if the initial prompt was arguing about animal and human characteristics, I presented a different debate that you accepted. The whole time we have been talking about whether or not it is okay to eat animals. You said it was "excusable" for people to hunt for food, which means it is okay to eat animals under some circumstances, which is the only point I was trying to discuss the entire time. o7

The point of veganism is not to eat animals or consume animal products, is it not? If you think it's okay to eat animals in some circumstances why argue along the rules of veganism?

@mountain_tiger your statement "This entire debate was whether or not is is okay to eat animals for any reason. " the real statement "up for a veganism debate on the grounds of ethics just name a trait or series of traits that animals lack that allows you to take away their moral consideration" your response was "RULES OF NATURE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If animals kill and eat each other, why can't we kill and eat them? Some would also eat us if they have opportunity to. Personally do not consider industrialized meat farms ethical, but I do not think it is necessarily amoral to eat an animal at all." literally ignoring my 'name the trait' prompt, which was fine, but don't lie about what the debate was about so you can act like you won your lying to say that this was the debate prompt you cant justify me vs them when your talking herbivores, your just needlessly slaughtering animals that would never even attack you and calling it moral you brought up a poor excuse, i told you that it was poor and explained why unless you can add more weight behind your 'they would kill me first' argument now your backing away, saying 'debates arent about winning' when you legit bragged about winning when i agreed that indigenous people can eat meat you can come back and try again if you have a better argument, but you lost fair and square in the market place of ideas, don't start lying so you can act like you won (also, veganism by definition is simply to reduce as much harm and suffering as humanly possible, not do 0 harm to animals. common misconception)

ill just simplify the debate in one, solid rebuttle "RULES OF NATURE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If animals kill and eat each other, why can't we kill and eat them? Some would also eat us if they have opportunity to. Personally do not consider industrialized meat farms ethical, but I do not think it is necessarily amoral to eat an animal at all." Well, no, because the animals being farmed are herbivores and wouldn't kill and eat you in the wild. You simultaneously denounce the meat industry while also giving money to fund it. That is hypocrisy.

@momoichi The rules of nature was obviously a meme, which is why I posted the song with it, if you couldn't see that then I'll concede that might be my fault as a communication error. Obviously, I ignored your statement and approached you with a different topic of debate based on veganism as a practice. I didn't say that was your original prompt. The topic I approached you with was the morality of eating animals at all. It is obvious that our discussion deviated from the prompt because I brought my own to discuss your vegan ideas.

Additionally, you just make assumptions about my habits to support your arguments, which is silly because you don't even know me. I only eat meat when it's given to me and I don't eat out. o7

@mountain_tiger You say it was a meme and then justified it? The food chain is an argument iv heard against veganism before, but it just isn't a very good one. And no, it wasn't obvious. You never said "some forms of meat consumption are inherently cruel, but others are amoral." You defended your consumption of animal products multiple times using the food chain argument in our debate. Can you show me where you changed the topic of the debate to be about if there is ever an ethical form of meat consumption and i missed it? Because that is entirely a possibility and if so i do apologize that i missed it. Or, alternatively, you could follow the original prompt and name a trait. Also, as i spoke to in our other debate, assumptions and questions are needed to be made to understand the others side. Can you show me an assumption i unfairly made? For the most part my debate strategy is to use hypotheticals and questions to test for any logical inconsistencies, which i succeeded at. There's a proper name for this strategy but i just cant for the life of me remember it.

@momoichi The topic I approached you with was "I don't think it is amoral to eat animals at all". That is the only point I have been trying to argue with you about the entire time. Additionally, the only time I brought up my personal dietary habits was my last post and the following "I mostly eat for sustenance, not necessarily because I enjoy eating, so I simply eat what is given to me or what I can acquire. In most cases, it doesn't matter to me what I eat as long as I have something to eat. I don't have a problem with vegans or "carnivores", I just don't limit myself to one or the other." This simply means that I am not opposed to eating meat as a concept. Your assumption was that I support the meat industry via buying meat produced by industrial agriculturalism so that you could argue I am an amoral hypocrite. o7