upRootNutrition/obsidian
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://gitlab.com/upRootNutrition/obsidian.git synced 2025-06-15 23:15:12 -05:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Initial commit

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Nick 2024-06-28 02:13:12 -05:00
commit bc15d67574
1475 changed files with 1056167 additions and 0 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

78
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Allan Savory.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
# Debate 1
### Allan's Argument for Holistic Management
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|:-------------------------------------------:|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| <font color="CC6600">**M**</font> | (x) something can be managed |
| <font color="CC6600">**P**</font> | (x) something was produced |
| <font color="CC6600">**C**</font> | (x) mismanagement of nature has led to climate change |
| <font color="CC6600">**R**</font> | institutional policies are the root cause of climate change |
| <font color="CC6600">**B**</font> | institutional policy-makers have embraced complexity |
| <font color="CC6600">**V**</font> | we must begin taking steps to reverse desertification |
| <font color="CC6600">**D**</font> | the methods discussed in (x) Allan's TEDTalk reverse desertification |
| <font color="CC6600">**G**</font> | we must instantiate institutional policy to encourage the use of the methods discussed in (x) Allan's TEDTalk |
| <font color="CC6600">**n**</font> | nature |
| <font color="CC6600">**h**</font> | holistic management |
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1)</b></font> If something cannot be managed, then it was produced.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∀x(¬◇Mx→Px))</b>
<br />
<b>P2)</b></font> Nature was not produced.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(¬Pn)</b>
<br />
<b>P3)</b></font> If nature can be managed and the mismanagement of nature has led to climate change, then institutional policies are the root cause of climate change.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(◇Mn∧∀x(Cx→R))</b>
<br />
<b>P4)</b></font> Desertification has led to climate change.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(Cd)</b>
<br />
<b>P5)</b></font> If institutional policies are the root cause of climate change, then institutional policy-makers have not embraced complexity.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(R→¬B)</b>
<br />
<b>P6)</b></font> If institutional policy-makers have not embraced complexity, then we must begin taking steps to reverse desertification.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(¬B→V)</b>
<br />
<b>P7)</b></font> If we must begin taking steps to reverse desertification and the methods discussed in Allan's TEDTalk reverse desertification, then we must instantiate institutional policy to encourage the use of the methods discussed in Allan's TEDTalk.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(V∧∀x(Dx→Gx))</b>
<br />
<b>P8)</b></font> Holistic management reverses desertification.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(Dh)</b>
<br />
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, we must instantiate institutional policy to encourage the use of holistic management.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∴Gh)</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(~3~9Mx~5Px)),(~3Pn),(~9Mn~1~6x(Cx~5R)),(Cd),(R~5~3B),(~3B~5V),(V~1~6x(Dx~5Gx)),(Dh)|=(Gh))
---
# Hashtags
#debate
#debate_opponents
#agriculture
#climate

29
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Andrew Morcheles.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
# Debate 1
## Tweet
>The reason I’m not vegan is that my personal ethics are such that they allow me to, in good conscience, indulge my belief that animal products are healthier and more enjoyable to consume than the available alternatives, despite unfortunate tradeoffs in animal deaths and suffering
## Proposition
> "Status as an obligate carnivore absolutely forecloses that a vegan diet could be superior."
## Clarified Proposition:
> "Status as an obligate carnivore forecloses the possibility that a diet that is totally absent any animal foods could be superior to a carnivorous diet for cats."
## New Proposition
> "Cats are adapted to thrive on a meat-based diet."
> "A diet consisting only of plant products would not provide the sufficient nutrients to maximize that cat's fitness."
---
# Hashtags
#debate
#debate_opponents
#debate
#clowns
#clownery
#vegan
#cats

58
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Anthony Chaffee.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
### Polyphenol Reductio
| <font color="CC6600">**Variable**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definition**</font> |
|:----------------------------------------:|:-------------------------------------------------------------- |
| <font color="CC6600">**H**</font> | plant defense chemicals (x) are harmful |
| <font color="CC6600">**C**</font> | plant defense chemicals (x) are contained in food (y) |
| <font color="CC6600">**V**</font> | plant defense chemicals (x) render food (y) harmful. |
| <font color="CC6600">**M**</font> | genetic modification that removes (p) renders (g) less harmful |
| <font color="CC6600">**p**</font> | polyphenols from grass |
| <font color="CC6600">**g**</font> | grass-fed beef |
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1)</b></font> If plant defense chemicals are harmful and plant defense chemicals are contained in a food, then plant defense chemicals render the food harmful.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∀x∀y(Hx∧Cxy→Vxy))</b>
<br />
<b>P2)</b></font> Polyphenols from grass are harmful.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(Hp)</b>
<br />
<b>P3)</b></font> Polyphenols from grass are contained in grass-fed beef.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(Cpg)</b>
<br />
<b>P4)</b></font> If polyphenols from grass render grass-fed beef harmful, then genetic modification that removes polyphenols from grass renders grass-fed beef less harmful.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(Vpg→Mpg)</b>
<br />
<b>P5)</b></font> Polyphenols from grass render grass-fed beef harmful.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(Vpg)</b>
<br />
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, genetic modification that removes polyphenols from grass renders grass-fed beef less harmful.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∴Mpg)</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x~6y(Hx~1Cxy~5Vxy)),(Hp),(Cpg),(Vpg~5Mpg),(Vpg)|=(Mpg))
---
# Hashtags
#clowns
#clownery
#debate
#debate_opponents

47
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Anti-War Mindset.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
# Debate 1
## Proposition
>"vegans kill more animals than non-vegans"
## Clarified Proposition
>"do you mean more animals die as a result of vegans making consumer choices as opposed to omnivores making consumer choices?"
## Questions
1. By this, do you mean more animals die as a result of vegans making consumer choices as opposed to omnivores making consumer choices?
1. answer: yes
2. Is this in absolute or relative terms?
1. answer: relative
3. What's the evidence that the proposition is true?
1. Required are empirics showing that more animals die when vegans make vegan consumer choices over omnivorous consumer choices, adjusted/truncated for biofuel and animal ag feed.
2. Statistics also need to be truncated to account for omnivores making consumer decisions consistent with veganism (such as buying bread).
## Evidence
- crop protection and production kills lots of animals
- there's a worldwide decline in insects and birds (via pesticides and habitat change)
- compatible with veganism causing fewer deaths in the long run
- human activity leads to insect and bird deaths in animal ag scenarios too
- pasture for grass-fed
- crops for grain-fed
- none of this is interesting because there are no comparative analyses of consumer choices and their subsequent effects on animal death
- the only information we know from this is that crop ag kills lots of animals
- insufficient to make the case that more animals die from vegan, rather than omnivore, choices
## Questions
- would alternatives to crop ag
## Argument
P1) If you kill off animals to extinction, then ecosystems will break down
P2) you kill off animals to extinction
C) therefore, ecosystems will break down
---
# Hashtags
#debate
#debate_opponents
#clowns
#clownery

72
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Anticarnick.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
# Debate 1
## Proposition
>"the claim that killing a particular carnist reduces total rights violations is unfalsifiable"
---
## Semantic Analysis
### Unclear Terms
1. unfalsifiable
1. still no clue
1. a hypothesis is falsifiable if and only if demonstrating the negation of the hypothesis is practically achievable
2. a hypothesis is unfalsifiable if and only if demonstrating the negation of the hypothesis is impractical
2. disprove
1.
---
## Clarified Proposition
>demonstrating the negation of the hypothesis that "killing a particular carnist reduces total rights violations" is impractical
## Questions
1.
# Dom's Rebuttal
>Both "killing X reduces rights violations" (A) and its negation "killing X does not reduce rights violations" (B) are falsifiable, as long as the goalposts arent moved. For both you can devise some experiment where we observe rights violations (in a set area, for a given time, etc), kill X, observe rights violations under the same constraints again. Lets label the results "less rights violations observed" P and "equal or more rights violations observed Q. Under:
>
>A+P, A is not rejected
>A+Q, A is rejected
>B+P, B is rejected
>B+Q, B is not rejected
---
### Dom's Reductio
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1)</b></font> If one claims that killing a carnist is going to lower total rights violations and one can claim that the proof for the claim is obtainable, then the claim that killing a carnist is going to lower total rights violations is not falsifiable.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(P∧Q→¬R)</b>
<br />
<b>P2)</b></font> One claims that killing a carnist is going to lower total rights violations.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(P)</b>
<br />
<b>P3)</b></font> One can claim that the proof for the claim is obtainable.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(Q)</b>
<br />
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, the claim that killing a carnist is going to lower total rights violations is not falsifiable.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∴¬R)</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(P~1Q~5~3R),(P),(Q)|=(~3R))
---
# Hashtags
#debate
#debate_opponents

40
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Appoota.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
# Debate 1
## Proposition
>net-caught wild caught salmon is not vegan
## Notes
1. there is cost of applying the principle of indifference
the cost is that there are more rights violations happening
2. it's not clear that there is a cost of applying the precautionary principle
## Questions
1. what's the evidence that there is a cost to the PoI?
1. killing even order predators leads to a net increase in rights violations
2. how?
1. 60% bycatch is OOP
1. 60/100 fish causing rights violations
2. 40% bycatch is EOP
1. 40/100 fish preventing rights violations
3. killing EOP allows more OOP to live than the OOP you caught
---
# Debate 2
## Proposition
>lure caught wild salmon is not vegan
## Notes
1. we're agnostic about whether these salmon are OOP or EOP
2. at worst you're doing something bad (where you'd be morally obligated not to do it) and at best you're doing something good (where it would only be morally obligatory to do it)
3. moral duties weigh against action in this case
---
# Hashtags
#debate
#debate_opponents

48
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Asar Cadyn.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
# Debate 1
### Human Experiment Reductio
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|:-------------------------------------------:|:------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| <font color="CC6600">**V**</font> | human studies (x) are vulnerable to bias and small effect sizes |
| <font color="CC6600">**D**</font> | human studies (x) can demonstrate causality or support causal inference |
| <font color="CC6600">**G**</font> | human studies (x) are garbage |
| <font color="CC6600">**e**</font> | human experiments |
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1)</b></font> If human studies are vulnerable to bias and small effect sizes, then human studies cannot demonstrate causality or support causal inference.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∀x(Vx→¬Dx))</b>
<br />
<b>P2)</b></font> Human experiments are vulnerable to bias and small effect sizes.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(Ve)</b>
<br />
<b>P3)</b></font> If human experiments cannot demonstrate causality or support causal inference, then human experiments are garbage.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(¬De→Ge)</b>
<br />
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, human experiments are garbage.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∴Ge)</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Vx~5~3Dx)),(Ve),(~3De~5Ge)|=(Ge))
---
# Hashtags
#clownery
#clowns
#epidemiology
#debate_opponents
#debate

32
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Austin Farley.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
# Debate 1
## Proposition:
> Nick's definition is still based on a completely flimsy and inconsistent ideology.
## Questions:
1. Do you mean there's a logical contradiction?
- yes
1. If yes, what's the contradiction?
- couldn't say
## Link:
https://twitter.com/TheNutrivore/status/1661926888544288771?s=20
## Receipts:
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20230526130915.png]]
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20230526130924.png]]
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20230526130937.png]]
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20230526130947.png]]
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20230526131034.png]]
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20230526131109.png]]
---
# Hashtag
#debate
#debate_opponents
#vegan
#philosophy

198
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Bart Kay.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,198 @@
# Debate 1
### Debate Proposition:
> "100% Carnivore diet is the appropriate and best health choice for all people."
1) What does "appropriate" mean? In relation to what?
-
2) What does "best" mean?
-
3) What does "health" mean? Some endpoint?
-
4) What constitutes a 100% carnivore diet?
-
### Clarified Debate Proposition:
> "Z is X and Y W choice for all people."
1) Ask if this is a scientific claim.
-
### Line of Questioning:
1) What's the evidence?
- " "
2) What is the argument that is this evidence is more expected on the hypothesis than the negation of the hypothesis?
- An argument is required, because maybe the "evidence" is less or equally expected on the proposition (which would not be evidence for the proposition)
3) If he does provide an argument, examine the premises carefully
- If a premise is unconvincing, ask for the argument for the premise
- Repeat if necessary or until you become convinced
### Provided Argument:
| | Propositions |
| --- | ------------ |
| P1 | |
| P2 | |
| C | Therefore, |
### Cherry on top
Whatever he says, ask him if he would accept the same evidence for a vegan diet?
---
# Arguments
### Tangential Stipulations Tho
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|:-------------------------------------------:|:------------------------------------------- |
| <font color="CC6600">**S**</font> | stipulation (x) is tangential to the debate |
| <font color="CC6600">**O**</font> | stipulation (x) is objectionable to Bart |
| <font color="CC6600">**a**</font> | Bart demanding that Avi not speak to Isaac |
| <font color="CC6600">**n**</font> | Nick demanding that Bart debates Avi |
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1)</b></font> If a stipulation is tangential to the debate, then the stipulation is objectionable to Bart.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∀x(Sx→Ox))</b>
<br />
<b>P2)</b></font> Bart demanding that Avi not speak to Isaac is tangential to the debate.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(Sa)</b>
<br />
<b>P3)</b></font> Nick demanding that Bart debates Avi is tangential to the debate.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(Sn)</b>
<br />
<b>P4)</b></font> If Nick demanding that Bart debates Avi is objectionable to Bart, then Bart demanding that Avi not speak to Isaac is objectionable to Bart.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(On→Oa)</b>
<br />
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, Bart demanding that Avi not speak to Isaac is objectionable to Bart.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∴Oa)</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Sx~5Ox)),(Sa),(Sn),(On~5Oa)|=(Oa))
### Dodging Bart Tho
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|:----------------------------------------:|:------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| <font color="CC6600">**R**</font> | stipulated conditions (x) for a debate have no bearing on the debate (y) |
| <font color="CC6600">**M**</font> | stipulation-maker (z) is dodging debate (y) |
| <font color="CC6600">**p**</font> | Avi being able to publicly talk to his friends |
| <font color="CC6600">**a**</font> | Bart's debate with Avi |
| <font color="CC6600">**b**</font> | Bart debating Avi |
| <font color="CC6600">**n**</font> | Nick's debate with Bart |
| <font color="CC6600">**t**</font> | Bart |
| <font color="CC6600">**c**</font> | Nick |
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1)</b></font> If the stipulated conditions for a debate have no bearing on the debate, then the stipulation-maker is dodging the debate.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∀x∀y∀z(Rxy→Mzy))</b>
<br />
<b>P2)</b></font> Avi being able to publicly talk to his friends has no bearing on Bart's debate with Avi.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(Rpa)</b>
<br />
<b>P3)</b></font> Bart debating Avi has no bearing on Nick's debate with Bart.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(Rbn)</b>
<br />
<b>P4)</b></font> If Nick is dodging Nick's debate with Bart, then Bart is dodging Bart's debate with Avi.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(Mcn→Mta)</b>
<br />
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, Bart is dodging Bart's debate with Avi.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∴Mta)</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x~6y~6z(Rxy~5Mzy)),(Rpa),(Rbn),(Mcn~5Mta)|=(Mta))
[[📂 Media/PDFs/Bart Kay Debate.pdf]]
---
# Bart's Chat
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20220804191438.png]]
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20220804191533.png]]
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20220804191630.png]]
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20220804191245.png]]
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20220804191655.png]]
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20220804191701.png]]
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20220804191718.png]]
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20220804191746.png]]
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20220804190921.png]]
---
# Email Convo
### Nick
Hello, Bart. I'm willing to debate against your proposition, but it's conditional. First you must lift the restrictions that you set for Avi Bitterman regarding the LDL and CVD debate. Your conditions were unreasonable, and even included absurd stipulations like him limiting his online social life (lol) and only being allowed to reference three publications (lol). If you lift these unreasonable conditions and have an untimed, unfettered debate Avi, I will debate you. It's quite simple. I'm perfectly willing to debate under those conditions. If you refuse those conditions (which are quite reasonable), it's you impeding the debate, not me.
### Bart
You cannot do justice to debating more than about three papers during a debate. There must be time to look closely into each source you want to bring. The restrictions on Your boy Avi had nothing to do with his 'social life'. I said he and Isaac Brown must not comment publicly before or during any series of debates. It was not remotely unreasonable given their behaviour around the issue at the time. If there was ANY decent scientifically valid evidence in support of your LDL hypothesis, one paper will do it. I think a limit of 3 is perfectly generous, because I KNOW there is no such evidence extant. It takes time as I said to properly debunk the kind of nonsense you ridiculous ideologues like to cite. If you refuse this debate, it is YOU refusing it, NOT me.
### Nick
My terms were clear, and I see no argument from you to support your suggestion that a single paper should necessarily be sufficient to make a particular case for the hypothesis in question. Some cases for some hypotheses would require synthesizing data from multiple domains, across tens or even hundreds of papers. I also see no argument from you to support the suggestion that Isaac Brown's behaviour on social media would have any bearing on the debate between Avi and yourself whatsoever. If you wish to provide those arguments, I'm open to receiving them. Until then, I view my terms to be more reasonable than your own, and I'm thereby considering you as the party who is gridlocking the debate. I'm perfectly open to debating when my terms have been satisfied. Proceed however you wish.
### Bart
As expected, you are a coward. No shocks. Scientific evidence comes in the form of properly controlled, properly powered, properly randomised, properly disciplined intervention based experimental works, if you want to propose cause and effect. If any such existed, it would have been published in a single paper providing that data. You and I both know that no such work exists, ergo if you propose a causal artefact here, you lose the debate, outright, before you even begin. Also historical statements around conditions on a completely separate and unrelated proposed debate that did not occur have no bearing whatever on this proposal. Basically, you're being exactly the pathetic boy I knew you would be. If you're confident in your ability to prove me wrong, you need to take this opportunity seriously. Grow up, child. Send me your three proposed papers establishing your moot, and we're on. There is no gridlock. You are attempting to gridlock by misinformation constipation. You do not win a debate by making a larger number of references to papers that do not prove your point... you bring the 1-3 top papers that you propose do prove your point.
### Nick
> _"Scientific evidence comes in the form of properly controlled, properly powered, properly randomised, properly disciplined intervention based experimental works, if you want to propose cause and effect."_ 
This is just a straightforwardly false claim. There are forms of scientific evidence that don't meet this conjunction of characteristics. Can you try again to provide an argument to support your suggestion that a single paper should necessarily be sufficient to make a particular case for the hypothesis in question?
> _"Also historical statements around conditions on a completely separate and unrelated proposed debate that did not occur have no bearing whatever on this proposal."_ 
Again, my conditions are clear. If you're free to stipulate conditions upon others that have no bearing on previous proposals, I see no argument for why others cannot place likewise stipulations upon you for current proposals. Could you please provide that argument?
### Bart
If you want to argue with me, your opportunity is to do so live on camera, I'm not wasting any more of my valuable time here. Bring your 1-3 best proofs, provide them up front, and lets go. Book it. No more emails. [calendly.com/bart-kay](http://calendly.com/bart-kay)
---
# Hashtags
#debate
#clowns
#clownery
#carnivore
#bart_kay
#philosophy
#debate_opponents

15
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Bekips.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
# Receipts
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20221106162911.png]]
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20221106162919.png]]
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20221106162930.png]]
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20221106162943.png]]
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20221106162957.png]]
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20221106163008.png]]
---
# Hashtags
#debate
#debate_opponents

31
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Bourrée in E minor.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
# Debate 1
## Propositions
1. Only men and women exist. No such thing as gender.
2. Saturated fat and cholesterol is not bad for you, it's actually good for you.
3. We thrive best eating raw animal products
4. Modern Women are the most privileged species that have ever existed in the history of the recorded universe.
5. Abortion is bad.
6. Twitter is cancer, woke left/radfem is the worst thing happening in society.
7. Vaccines don't work and are harmful.
8. Masks don't work.
9. Moral philosophy is absolutely retarded
10. A plant based diet is absolutely horrible for you.
11. Soy is bad .
12. People are most racist now then ever, mostly due to the woke left. Shoving things down peoples throats, they never had an issue before, however since it's being forced, that's why racists are growing.
13. Yes, disgust is valid. Don't fuck your siblings.
14. Solipsist and post modernists need to die.
## Notes:
Apparently he cucked out tho.
---
# Hashtags
#debate
#debate_opponents
#clowns
#clownery

81
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Brian Kateman.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,81 @@
## Debate 1
### Proposition:
>Veganism is impossible
1. What is meant by "veganism" here?
2. On what modality is veganism impossible?
1. sounds like a deontic modality
2. If veganism is deontologically impossible, it must be in virtue of some other impossibility that constrains action.
3. On what modality is it impossible to casually stroll without causing animal suffering?
3. Why is it assumed that veganism is a deontological thesis?
1. If it's not assumed that veganism is a deontological thesis, then what's the argument that the action of walking is less compatible with vegan principles than not walking?
### Clarified Proposition:
>Veganism is unlikely
1. What does it mean for veganism to be unlikely?
#### Brian's Argument For Impossible Veganism
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|:-------------------------------------------:|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| <font color="CC6600">**V**</font> | it is possible for (x) one to be vegan |
| <font color="CC6600">**S**</font> | it is possible for (x) one's (y) actions to cause animal suffering absence of survival necessity |
| <font color="CC6600">**h**</font> | human |
| <font color="CC6600">**e**</font> | existence |
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1)</b></font> It's possible for one to be vegan if and only if it's possible for one's actions to not cause animal suffering in the absence of survival necessity.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∀x∀y(◇Vx↔◇¬Sxy))</b>
<br />
<b>P2)</b></font> Human existence necessitates animal suffering in the absence of survival necessity.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(▢She)</b>
<br />
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, it is impossible for humans to be vegan.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∴¬◇Vh)</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x~6y(~9Vx~4~9~3Sxy)),(~8She)|=(~3~9Vh))
---
## Debate 2
### Definition
>Reducetarianism is the practice of eating less meat - red meat, poultry, and seafood - as well as less dairy and fewer eggs, regardless of the degree or motivation.
### My Proposition
>Reducetarianism is either subsumed by my definition OR leads to absurdity OR leads to a contradiction.
## Receipts:
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20230411160120.png]]
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20230411160134.png]]
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20230411160144.png]]
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20230411160152.png]]
---
## Hashtags
#debate
#debate_opponents
#clowns
#clownery
#vegan
#cropdeaths

23
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Captain Ammo.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
# Debate 1
## Proposition
>"Eating a natural balanced diet is better than eating vegan."
## Evidence
1) ~~blue zones~~ (not evidence lol)
1) thriving tho
2) families tho
3) happy tho
2) The evidence for the prop was his intuitions.
1) No need to have a debate.
---
# Hashtags
#debate
#debate
#debate_opponents

39
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Carnivore Is Vegan.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
### Noah's Position
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1)</b></font> If it is permissible to use all of an animal's body parts, then there are no non-animal body part alternatives and immediate survival turns on using the animal's body parts.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(P→¬Q∧R)</b>
<br />
<b>P2)</b></font> There are non-animal body part alternatives.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(Q)</b>
<br />
<b>P3)</b></font> Immediate survival does not turn using the animal's body parts.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(¬R)</b>
<br />
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, it is not permissible to use all of an animal's body parts.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∴¬P)</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(P~5~3Q~1R),(Q),(~3R)|=(~3P))
---
# Hashtags
#debate
#debate_opponents
#clowns
#clownery
#vegan

77
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Cat IRL.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
# Debate 1
## Proposition
> "Plants don't want to be eaten because they can get scared, stressed, or horny"
## Analysis
1. plants can get scared, stressed, or horny
2. fear: tries to protect itself by making itself taste like shit
3. stress: chemical communication to other X
4. horny: has a means of reproduction
5. want: inclination or movement toward something
6. clock: has an internal clock
### Sentience Reductio
| <font color="CC6600">**Variable**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definition**</font> |
|:----------------------------------------:|:--------------------------------------------------------- |
| <font color="CC6600">**F**</font> | something (x) try to protect itself |
| <font color="CC6600">**S**</font> | something (x) communicates chemically to other things (x) |
| <font color="CC6600">**H**</font> | something (x) has a means of reproduction |
| <font color="CC6600">**W**</font> | something (x) has an inclination toward something |
| <font color="CC6600">**E**</font> | something (x) is sentient |
| <font color="CC6600">**C**</font> | something (x) behaves according to an internal clock |
| <font color="CC6600">**g**</font> | euglena |
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1) </b></font>If something tries to protect itself and communicates chemically to other things and has a means of reproduction and an inclination toward something and behaves according to an internal clock, then something is sentient.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∀x(Fx∧Sx∧Hx∧Wx∧Cx→Ex))</b>
<br />
<b>P2) </b></font>Euglena tries to protect themselves.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(Fg)</b>
<br />
<b>P3) </b></font>Euglena communicate chemically to other euglena.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(Sg)</b>
<br />
<b>P4) </b></font>Euglena have a means of reproduction.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(Hg)</b>
<br />
<b>P5) </b></font>Euglena have an inclination toward something.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(Wg)</b>
<br />
<b>P6) </b></font>Euglena behaves according to an internal clock.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(Cg)</b>
<br />
<b>C) </b></font>Therefore, euglena are sentient.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∴Eg)</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Fx~1Sx~1Hx~1Wx~1Cx~5Ex)),(Fg),(Sg),(Hg),(Wg),(Cg)|=(Eg))
---
# Hashtags
#clowns
#clownery
#debate
#debate_opponents
#vegan

70
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Csypher.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
# Debate 1
## Proposition
> "Preferences are gibberish"
## Argument
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|:-------------------------------------------:|:------------------------------------------------------- |
| <font color="CC6600">**P**</font> | one's concept (x) is private |
| <font color="CC6600">**E**</font> | others can have epistemic access to one's concept (x) |
| <font color="CC6600">**R**</font> | a concept (x) can have a shared referent |
| <font color="CC6600">**M**</font> | the concept (x) refers to material external to the mind |
| <font color="CC6600">**C**</font> | a concept (x) can be communicated |
| <font color="CC6600">**p**</font> | preference |
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1)</b></font> One's concept is private if, and only if, others cannot have epistemic access to one's concept.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∀x(Px↔¬Ex))</b>
<br />
<b>P2)</b></font> One's concept can have a shared referent if, and only if, one's concept refers to material external to the mind.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∀x(Rx↔Mx))</b>
<br />
<b>P3)</b></font> One's concept can be communicated if, and only if, one's concept is not private and one's concept can have a shared referent.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∀x(Cx↔¬Px∧Rx))</b>
<br />
<b>P4)</b></font> Others can not have epistemic access one's preferences.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(¬Ep)</b>
<br />
<b>P5)</b></font> One's preferences do not refer to material external to the mind.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(¬Mp)</b>
<br />
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, one's preferences cannot be communicated.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∴¬Cp)</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Px~4~3Ex)),(~6x(Rx~4Mx)),(~6x(Cx~4~3Px~1Rx)),(~3Ep),(~3Mp)|=(~3Cp))
## Analysis
1) No clear reason to accept P1, P2, or P3 until the modality for possibility/impossibility is provided.
2) No clear reason to accept P4 or P5. They're just empirical claims.
---
# Hashtags
#debate
#debate_opponents
#clowns
#clownery
#philosophy
#moral_subjectivism

348
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Cuck Truck.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,348 @@
# Debate Invitations and Responses
## Ken Berry
- **Social:** [KenDBerryMD](https://twitter.com/KenDBerryMD)
- **Circumstances:** Multiple debate invitations extended via X with no response.
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1366524889067368449?s=20)
- **Repeat Offenses:**
1. Debate invitation extended and dodged via X. [Link](https://twitter.com/TheNutrivore/status/1539720236701589504?s=20)
2. Debate invitation extended via X with no response. [Link](https://twitter.com/TheNutrivore/status/1539721408372039680?s=20)
## Cliff Harvey
- **Social:** [CarbAppropriate](https://twitter.com/CarbAppropriate)
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation accepted via email and later declined via X.
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/CarbAppropriate/status/1372281626206507010?s=20)
- **Repeat Offenses:**
1. Debate invitation extended via X with no response. [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1500650543886204929?s=20)
## Diana Rodgers
- **Social:** [sustainabledish](https://twitter.com/sustainabledish)
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation extended via Instagram and presumed declined due to being deleted.
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1365857401786814465?s=20)
## Dave Feldman
- **Social:** [DaveKeto](https://twitter.com/DaveKeto)
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation conditionally accepted via X and later declined.
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1306625219440730118?s=20)
## Cate Shanahan
- **Social:** [drcateshanahan](https://twitter.com/drcateshanahan)
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation extended via X with no response.
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1266438463634632709?s=20)
- **Repeat Offenses:**
1. Debate invitation extended via X with no response. [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1479497980570857474?s=20)
2. Debate invitation extended via X with no response. [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1487215337116508162?s=20)
3. Debate invitation extended via X with no response. [Link](https://twitter.com/drcateshanahan/status/1516904406805057537?s=20)
4. Debate invitation extended via X with no response. [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1537544882532716544?s=20)
## Paul Mason
- **Social:** [DrPaulMason](https://twitter.com/DrPaulMason)
- **Circumstances:** Nominated for debate with no follow-up.
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/Tom_Babington1/status/1361644276866830337?s=20)
- **Repeat Offenses:**
1. Debate invitation extended via X with no response. [Link](https://twitter.com/IdanOnTweeter/status/1373233980594618371?s=20)
2. Debate invitation extended via X with no response. [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1461361726943760391?s=20)
## Ivor Cummins
- **Social:** [FatEmperor](https://twitter.com/FatEmperor)
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation extended via X with no response.
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1268600451693494273?s=20)
- **Repeat Offenses:**
1. Debate invitation declined via X. [Link](https://twitter.com/FatEmperor/status/1636920650156724226?s=20)
## Paul Saladino
- **Social:** [paulsaladinomd](https://twitter.com/paulsaladinomd)
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation extended via X with no response.
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1275912849999695872?s=20)
- **Repeat Offenses:**
1. Debate invitation extended via X with no response. [Link](https://twitter.com/FoodFirst_Ty/status/1282847039596843009?s=20)
2. Debate invitation extended via X with no response. [Link](https://twitter.com/FoodFirst_Ty/status/1283449495682904064?s=20)
3. Debate invitation extended via X with no response. [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1282851963902636032?s=20)
4. Debate invitation extended via X with no response. [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1469136550046814219?s=20)
5. Debate invitation extended via X with no response. [Link](https://twitter.com/TheNutrivore/status/1591543878699843584?s=20)
6. Debate invitation extended via X with no response. [Link](https://twitter.com/TheNutrivore/status/1633831762509045766?s=20)
## Kyle Mamounis
- **Social:** [Nutricrinology](https://twitter.com/Nutricrinology)
- **Circumstances:** Engaged in written debate via X but disengaged once cornered.
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1389259133044477953?s=20)
## Tucker Goodrich
- **Social:** [TuckerGoodrich](https://twitter.com/TuckerGoodrich)
- **Circumstances:** Engaged in written debate via X and blocked when cornered.
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1276694117494358017?s=19)
- **Repeat Offenses:**
1. Debate invitation accepted via X and subsequently declined before blocking. [Link](https://twitter.com/TuckerGoodrich/status/1428062578668830720?s=20)
2. Debate invitation declined via X. [Link](https://twitter.com/TuckerGoodrich/status/1469366622196359170?s=20)
3. All further debate invitations preemptively declined via X. [Link](https://twitter.com/TuckerGoodrich/status/1470029816975872007?s=20)
## Amber O'Hearn
- **Social:** [KetoCarnivore](https://twitter.com/KetoCarnivore)
- **Circumstances:** Discussion invitation extended via X with no response.
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/FusionProgGuy/status/1413888976281169922?s=20)
## Mike Mutzel
- **Social:** [MikeMutzel](https://twitter.com/MikeMutzel)
- **Circumstances:** Challenged an egregious assertion and was ignored.
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1414457776982552576?s=20)
- **Repeat Offenses:**
1. Debate invitation extended via X with no response. [Link](https://twitter.com/TheNutrivore/status/1584645853771616256?s=20)
## Tro Kalayjian
- **Social:** [DoctorTro](https://twitter.com/DoctorTro)
- **Circumstances:** Engaged in written debate via X and dodged repeatedly before blocking.
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1261351818430255104?s=20)
## Zoe Harcombe
- **Social:** [zoeharcombe](https://twitter.com/zoeharcombe)
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation extended via X with no response.
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1418263706178310149)
## Ann Childers
- **Social:** [AnnChildersMD](https://twitter.com/AnnChildersMD)
- **Circumstances:** Engaged in written debate via X and repeatedly dodged when pressed for specifics.
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1447245484356108292?s=20)
## James DiNicolantonio
- **Social:** [drjamesdinic](https://twitter.com/drjamesdinic)
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation extended via X with no response.
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1460788569388171268?s=20)
## Ralph Napolitano
- **Social:** [DrRalphNap](https://twitter.com/DrRalphNap)
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation extended via X with no response.
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1462794580848300034?s=20)
## Michael Kummer
- **Social:** [mkummer82](https://twitter.com/mkummer82)
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation declined via X.
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/mkummer82/status/1465755847917715464?s=20)
## Kem Minnick
- **Social:** [kemminnick](https://twitter.com/kemminnick)
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation accepted via X with no follow-up.
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/kemminnick/status/1469336100300726273?s=20)
- **Repeat Offenses:**
1. Engaged in written debate via X and blocked when cornered. [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1476990862793986052?s=20)
## Travis Statham
- **Social:** [Travis_Statham](https://twitter.com/Travis_Statham)
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation extended via Reddit and ignored.
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1461428023207489542?s=20)
- **Repeat Offenses:**
1. Debate invitation declined via YouTube comments section. [Link](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGNNsiINehI)
2. Debate invitation extended via Reddit with no response. [Link](https://www.reddit.com/r/StopEatingSeedOils/comments/v457tu/how_vegetable_oils_make_us_fat_zero_acre/ic9u7wu/?utm_source=share)
## Raphael Sirtoli
- **Social:** [raphaels7](https://twitter.com/raphaels7)
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation declined via X.
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/raphaels7/status/1475767357188579329?s=20)
- **Repeat Offenses:**
1. All further debate invitations preemptively declined via X. [Link](https://x.com/raphaels7/status/1783541746015654072)
## Justin Mares
- **Social:** [jwmares](https://twitter.com/jwmares)
- **Circumstances:** Engaged in written debate via X and dodged when pressed for specifics.
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1329266554089869312?s=20)
## Anthony Gustin
- **Social:** [dranthonygustin](https://twitter.com/dranthonygustin)
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation accepted via X with no follow-up.
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1482502242632552449?s=20)
## Jake Mey
- **Social:** [CakeNutrition](https://twitter.com/CakeNutrition)
- **Circumstances:** Engaged in written debate via X and dodged when cornered.
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1490009495581298690?s=20)
- **Repeat Offenses:**
1. Debate invitation declined via X. [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1490060813138280450?s=20)
2. Imaginary debate invite preemptively declined via X. [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1495419256737091585?s=20)
## Max Lugavere
- **Social:** [maxlugavere](https://twitter.com/maxlugavere)
- **Circumstances:** Engaged in written debate via X and dodged when pressed for specifics.
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/maxlugavere/status/1517683567249149953?s=20)
- **Repeat Offenses:**
1. Debate invitation extended via X with no response. [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1518307089742848000?s=20)
2. Debate invitation declined via X. [Link](https://twitter.com/maxlugavere/status/1518367365683064833?s=20)
## Tristan Haggard
- **Social:** [Trxstxn4](https://twitter.com/Trxstxn4)
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation extended via X and presumed declined due to repeated dodges.
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1513596227052527621?s=20)
## Joseph Everett
- **Social:** [JEverettLearned](https://twitter.com/JEverettLearned)
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation extended via X with no response.
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1535334822825971712?s=20)
- **Repeat Offenses:**
1. Debate invitation extended via X with no response. [Link](https://twitter.com/TheNutrivore/status/1555138038740680704?s=20)
## Brad Campbell
- **Social:** [DrBradCampbell](https://twitter.com/DrBradCampbell)
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation extended via X with no response.
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1530933999610171392?s=20)
## Kevin Stock
- **Social:** [kevinstock12](https://twitter.com/kevinstock12)
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation extended via X with no response.
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1530140722225102848?s=20)
- **Repeat Offenses:**
1. Debate invitation extended via X with no response. [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1534927799911317509?s=20)
## Carnivore Aurelius
- **Social:** [AlpacaAurelius](https://twitter.com/AlpacaAurelius)
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation extended via X with no response.
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1538272143061815299?s=20)
## Bart Kay
- **YouTube:** [BartKayNutritionScienceWatchdog](https://www.youtube.com/c/BartKayNutritionScienceWatchdog/)
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation declined via email.
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7vTJ02xxrw)
- **Repeat Offenses:**
1. Debate invitation accepted via email with no follow-up. [Link](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7vTJ02xxrw)
## Nick Eggleton
- **Social:** [NickEggleton](https://twitter.com/NickEggleton)
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation declined via X.
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1266626885703720961?s=20)
## Marty Kendall
- **Social:** [martykendall2](https://twitter.com/martykendall2)
- **Circumstances:** Engaged in written debate via X and blocked when cornered.
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1310548994804809729)
## Rob Meijer
- **Social:** [EngineerDiet](https://twitter.com/EngineerDiet)
- **Circumstances:** Engaged in written debate via X and repeatedly dodged when pressed for specifics.
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1435850829051793408?s=20)
## Ashwani Garg
- **Social:** [agargmd](https://twitter.com/agargmd)
- **Circumstances:** Engaged in written debate via X and repeatedly dodged when cornered.
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1443328350982967303?s=20)
## Brian Kerley
- **Social:** [SeedOilDsrspctr](https://twitter.com/SeedOilDsrspctr)
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation extended via X with no response.
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1483889771134926849?s=20)
- **Repeat Offenses:**
1. Debate invitation extended via X with no response. [Link](https://x.com/TheNutrivore/status/1783200352646619227)
## Adam Pollock
- **Social:** [aIIegoricaI](https://twitter.com/aIIegoricaI)
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation declined via X.
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/aIIegoricaI/status/1495786414402945033?s=20)
## Kait Malthaner
- **Social:** [healthcoachkait](https://twitter.com/healthcoachkait)
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation extended via X with no response.
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1503258756687306753?s=20)
## Michael Manderville
- **Social:** [MikeManderville](https://twitter.com/MikeManderville)
- **Circumstances:** Engaged in written debate via X and dodged when pressed for specifics.
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1503036463306489856?s=20)
## Philip Ovadia
- **Social:** [ifixhearts](https://twitter.com/ifixhearts)
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation extended via X with no response.
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/TheNutrivore/status/1557791520324890624?s=20)
- **Repeat Offenses:**
1. Debate invitation extended via X with no response. [Link](https://twitter.com/TheNutrivore/status/1558282337024180224?s=20)
## Nina Teicholz
- **Social:** [bigfatsurprise](https://twitter.com/bigfatsurprise)
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation extended via X with no response.
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/TheNutrivore/status/1556510529014882305?s=20)
- **Repeat Offenses:**
1. Debate invitation extended via X with no response. [Link](https://twitter.com/TheNutrivore/status/1467571763865210881?s=20)
2. Debate invitation extended via X with no response. [Link](https://twitter.com/TheNutrivore/status/1538895943050878977?s=20)
## Norstrong Chris
- **Social:** [NNMChris](https://twitter.com/NNMChris)
- **Circumstances:** Engaged in written debate via X and repeatedly dodged when cornered.
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/NorstrongHealth/status/1416939281973530626?s=20)
- **Repeat Offenses:**
1. Debate invitation declined via X. [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1534573919562350594?s=20)
2. Debate invitation extended via X with no response. [Link](https://twitter.com/TheNutrivore/status/1534614710196260865?s=20)
## Clemens Zsófia
- **Social:** [ClemensZsofia](https://twitter.com/ClemensZsofia)
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation extended via X with no response.
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/TheNutrivore/status/1528377198180290561?s=20)
## Elie Jarrouge
- **Social:** [ElieJarrougeMD](https://twitter.com/ElieJarrougeMD)
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation extended via X with no response.
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/TheNutrivore/status/1506845469980315648?s=20)
## David Gornoski
- **Social:** [DavidGornoski](https://twitter.com/DavidGornoski)
- **Circumstances:** Debate declined via X.
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/TheNutrivore/status/1525474063044550657?s=20)
## Mark Sisson
- **Social:** [Mark_Sisson](https://twitter.com/Mark_Sisson)
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation extended via X with no response.
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/TheNutrivore/status/1488360227141419009?s=20)
## Adam Singer
- **Social:** [AdamSinger](https://twitter.com/AdamSinger)
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation extended via X with no response.
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/TheNutrivore/status/1566491269194719232?s=20)
## Benny Malone
- **Social:** [bennymaloneUK](https://twitter.com/bennymaloneUK)
- **Circumstances:** Engaged in written debate via X and dodged when pressed for specifics.
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/TheNutrivore/status/1576601875314487296?s=20)
## David Diamond
- **Social:** [LDLSkeptic](https://twitter.com/LDLSkeptic)
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation declined via X.
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/LDLSkeptic/status/1583471298306375681?s=20)
- **Repeat Offenses:**
1. All further debate invitations preemptively declined via X. [Link](https://twitter.com/LDLSkeptic/status/1583481964840902656?s=20)
## Ben Bikman
- **Social:** [BenBikmanPhD](https://twitter.com/BenBikmanPhD)
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation extended via X with no response.
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/TheNutrivore/status/1587547250074746880?s=19)
## Gary Taubes
- **Social:** [garytaubes](https://twitter.com/garytaubes)
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation declined via X.
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/garytaubes/status/1595180467552018432?s=20)
## Robb Wolf
- **Social:** [robbwolf](https://twitter.com/robbwolf)
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation declined via X.
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/TheNutrivore/status/1601624559647875072?s=20)
## Eric Sartori
- **Social:** [CarnAtheist](https://twitter.com/CarnAtheist)
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation declined via X.
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/CarnAtheist/status/1635015631627235328?s=20)
## Tart Vader
- **Discord:** [User Profile](https://discordlookup.com/user/600111075135848449#1989)
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation declined via Discord.
- **Evidence:** ⁠🌱┃veganism⁠
## Brian Kateman
- **Social:** [BrianKateman](https://twitter.com/BrianKateman)
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation accepted and subsequently declined via email.
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/BrianKateman/status/1645897476325482497?s=20)
## Edward Goeke
- **Social:** [GoekeEddie](https://twitter.com/GoekeEddie)
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation extended via X with no response.
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://x.com/TheNutrivore/status/1773421625150746784?s=20)
- **Repeat Offenses:**
1. Debate invitation extended via X with no response. [Link](https://x.com/TheNutrivore/status/1774154640403423359?s=20)
## Mike Sweeney
- **Social:** [thelowcarb_rd](https://twitter.com/thelowcarb_rd)
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation extended via X and presumed declined due to blocking.
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/TheNutrivore/status/1776652108646821913?t=Pf4sfAC1Z0pAcxGfQFr7oQ)

61
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Dave Feldman.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
# Lipid Triad
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29241485/
"Many CVRF-free middle-aged individuals have atherosclerosis. LDL-C, even at levels currently considered normal, is independently associated with the presence and extent of early systemic atherosclerosis in the absence of major CVRFs. These findings support more effective LDL-C lowering for primordial prevention, even in individuals conventionally considered at optimal risk."
Lipid combos:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25458651/
"Aside from isolated hypertriglyceridemia, low levels of HDL-C, high levels of LDL-C, and high levels of TG in any combination were associated with increased risk of CVD."
LMHR paper:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35106434/
"These data suggest that, in contrast to the typical pattern of dyslipidemia, greater LDL cholesterol elevation on a CRD tends to occur in the context of otherwise low cardiometabolic risk."
---
# LDL Bounty
## Criteria
1. **HDL Cholesterol of 50 mg/dL or above (≥ 1.29 mmol/L)**
2. **Triglycerides of 100 mg/dL or below (≤ 1.13 mmol/L)**
3. **LDL Cholesterol of 130 mg/dL or above (≥ 3.36 mmol/L)**
4. **Either high Coronary Heart Disease (CHD) or high Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) (see the section below)**
5. By “**normal**” and “**non-treated**“, I mean:
- No stratifying by specific genetics
- No stratifying by drugs (no drug studies)
- No stratifying by a particular illness in advance of the study. (duh!)
- _In other words, just a generally broad group of people like [Framingham Offspring](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27166203) or the [Jeppesen study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11176761)_
6. And here’s some fine print that should be obvious, but just in case…
- The study needs to be published in a reputable journal
- It has to be dated before this article was posted, of course
- The study needs to have at least 400 participants that are stratified by this criteria. (The two studies above have over 500)
- I’d prefer no unusual “modeling” or “adjustments” to alter the data too far from it’s original set. This one goes by the honor system — if you have such a study and it is clearly warranted, I can give it a pass.
"High" defined as greater than the average rates of CVD per age group in the American population.
### Criticisms
1. Vanishingly small population subset. Unreasonable to expect it to have been studied.
2. If studied in the general population, they won't be keto, so translation to keto subjects may be dubious.
3. The sheer weight of the evidence in favour of LDL's causal role in ASCVD cuts deeply against the notion that this population subset would be protected to begin with.
4. Comparing this isolated cohort to the American general population is methodology that is beyond fringe, bordering on insane.
5. Ultimately if this is taken to be an indication that LDL is fine in this particular context, it would qualify as an appeal to ignorance.
---
# Hashtags
#lipidology
#lipid_triad
#LMHR
#LDL
#triglycerides
#HDL
#clowns
#clownery
#debate
#debate_opponents

77
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/David McCune.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
# Debate 1
## Proposition
> "There's no evidence that masking reduces the spread of COVID19"
## Arguments
### Gold Standard Tho
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1)</b></font> If RCTs are the FDA's gold standard for causal inference, then RCTs are required for a causal inference regarding mask effectiveness.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(P→Q)</b>
<br />
<b>P2)</b></font> RCTs are the FDA's gold standard for causal inference.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(P)</b>
<br />
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, RCTs are required for a causal inference regarding mask effectiveness.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∴Q)</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(P~5Q),(P)|=(Q))
### New Interventions Tho
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|:-------------------------------------------:|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| <font color="CC6600">**N**</font> | the medical intervention (x) is new |
| <font color="CC6600">**K**</font> | the level of harm produced by the medical intervention (x) is known |
| <font color="CC6600">**R**</font> | an RCT is generally required for a causal inference for that medical intervention (x) |
| <font color="CC6600">**c**</font> | Required masking to reduce the spread of COVID |
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1)</b></font> If the medical intervention is new and the level of harm produced by the medical intervention is not known, then an RCT is generally required for a causal inference for that medical intervention.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∀x(Nx∧¬Kx→Rx))</b>
<br />
<b>P2)</b></font> Required masking to reduce the spread of COVID is new.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(Nc)</b>
<br />
<b>P3)</b></font> The level of harm produced by required masking to reduce the spread of COVID is not known.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(¬Kc)</b>
<br />
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, an RCT is generally required for causal inference for required masking to reduce the spread of COVID.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∴Rc)</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Nx~1~3Kx~5Rx)),(Nc),(~3Kc)|=(Rc))
---
# Hashtags
#debate
#debate_opponents
#clowns
#clownery

44
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/David Ramms.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
# Debate 1
## Proposition
> "We ought not stop predators in nature from engaging in predation."
### Ethical Factory Farming Reductio
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|:-------------------------------------------:|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| <font color="CC6600">**D**</font> | a predator (x) engages in predation (y) |
| <font color="CC6600">**R**</font> | it is the case that we ought stop the predator (x) from engaging in predation (y) |
| <font color="CC6600">**a**</font> | human |
| <font color="CC6600">**m**</font> | factory farming pigs |
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1)</b></font> If a predator engages in predation, then it is not the case that we ought stop the predator from engaging in said predation.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∀x∀y(Dxy→¬Rxy))</b>
<br />
<b>P2)</b></font> Humans engage in factory farming pigs.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(Dam)</b>
<br />
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, it is not the case that we ought stop humans from engaging in factory farming pigs.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∴¬Ram)</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x~6y(Dxy~5~3Rxy)),(Dam)|=(~3Ram))
---
# Hashtags
#debate
#debate_opponents
#vegan

57
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Die Militane Veganerin.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
# Debate 1
## Proposition
>"vegans kill more animals than non-vegans"
---
## Semantic Analysis
### Unclear Terms
1. **kill**
1. intentionally causing death?
1. directly
1. seems false
1. what's the evidence?
2. indirectly
1. what's the evidence?
2. total animal deaths?
1. directly
1. false
2. indirectly
1. what's the evidence?
2. **vegans kill**
1. in virtue of what?
1. while making consumer choices?
2. indirect causal pathways/support that leads to killing?
---
# Debate 2
## Proposition
>"vegans cause more animal suffering than non-vegans"
---
## Semantic Analysis
### Unclear Terms
1. **suffering**
1. intentionally causing negative emotional states?
1. directly
1. seems false
1. what's the evidence?
2. indirectly
1. what's the evidence?
2. **vegans cause more suffering**
1. in virtue of what?
1. while making consumer choices?
2. indirect causal pathways/support that leads to killing?
---
# Hashtags
#debate
#debate_opponents

69
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Durdee.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
# Debate 1
## Proposition
>Animal products are inherently unhealthy
## Semantic Analysis
1. "inherently"
1. necessary
1. modal
2.
### Unclear Terms
1. "inherently"
2. "unhealthy"
## Clarified Proposition
>Animal foods tend to cause harm
## Questions
1. "unhealthy"
2. "detrimental"
1. tending to cause harm
1. mechanisms tho
1.
---
# Debate 2
## Proposition
>Industry funding is a good reason to just dismiss studies regardless
## Semantic Analysis
### Unclear Terms
1. "good"
2. "dismiss"
## Clarified Proposition
>
## Questions
1.
---
# Debate 3
## Proposition
>Animal products and refined food use is risky because it can encourage habituation
## Semantic Analysis
### Unclear Terms
1. "habituation"
2. "risky"
## Clarified Proposition
>
## Questions
1.
---
# Hashtags
#debate
#debate_opponents

21
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Ent Lives Matter.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
# Debate 1
## Proposition
> "a good person is someone with only good desires and true beliefs."
## Semantics
1. **good desire** is a desire that sentient beings generally have a reason to praise.
2. **bad desire** is a desire that sentient beings generally have a reason to condemn.
## Analysis
what if the machine determined that they desired babies getting chopped up
---
# Hashtags
#debate
#debate_opponents
#moral_realism
#moral_subjectivism

22
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Fleur.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
# Debate 1
## Proposition
>NTT is not effective (empirical claim)
## Clarified Proposition
>NTT is unlikely to convince people who are philosophical academics of veganism
## Questions
1. effective with respect to what?
1. ability to convince someone of veganism?
2. what's the evidence?
1.
---
# Hashtag
#debate
#debate_opponents
#clowns
#clownery

50
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Frenchguy.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
# Debate 1
## Proposition
> "People don't want to eat Beyond Meat because their stock is decreasing."
## Argument
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|:----------------------------------------:|:-------------------------------------------------- |
| <font color="CC6600">**P**</font> | a firm's (x) stock has lost value |
| <font color="CC6600">*Q*</font> | a firm (x) has the highest sales in its domain (y) |
| <font color="CC6600">**R**</font> | a domain (y) is expected to be losing demand |
| <font color="CC6600">**b**</font> | Beyond |
| <font color="CC6600">**m**</font> | mock meat market |
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1)</b></font> If a firm's stock has lost value and that firm has the highest sales in its domain, then that domain is expected to be losing demand.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∀x∀y(Px∧Qxy→Ry))</b>
<br />
<b>P2)</b></font> Beyond's stock has lost value.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(Pb)</b>
<br />
<b>P3)</b></font> Beyond has the highest sales in the mock meat market.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(Qbm)</b>
<br />
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, the mock meat market is expected to be losing demand.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∴Rm)</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x~6y(Px~1Qxy~5Ry)),(Pb),(Qbm)|=(Rm))
---
# Hashtags
#debate_opponents
#debate
#economics

40
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Garland Farms.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
# Debate 1
## Debate Proposition:
> "Vegans wish to abolish and criminalize animal agriculture, however, the crop agriculture relied upon by vegans is more unethical than the animal agriculture relied upon by non-vegans."
>"There is dissonance between vegan values and the knowledge vegans possess?
1. Is the claim that vegans are hypocrites?
- Refuses to answer the question.
2. What is meant by unethical?
-
3. What is the argument that crop ag is less ethical than non-crop ag?
-
## Reference:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ecog.05126
---
# Debate 2
## Proposition
>Nick is in favour of intentionally disrupting ecosystems.
## Analysis
1. **Intentionally disrupt** just means I'm in favour of non-violent displacement of wild animals.
1. Don't disagree with the proposition.
---
# Hashtags
#debate
#debate_opponents
#vegan
#cropdeaths
#low_carb_talking_points
#clowns
#clownery

94
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Gary Taubes.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,94 @@
# Debate 1
## Proposition
> "carbohydrates cause obesity because they cause starvation."
## Arguments
### Steel Man of Gary's Argument
| <font color="CC6600">**Variable**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definition**</font> |
|:----------------------------------------:|:------------------------------------------ |
| <font color="CC6600">**S**</font> | a macronutrient (x) causes starvation |
| <font color="CC6600">**N**</font> | a macronutrient (x) increases insulin |
| <font color="CC6600">**f**</font> | fat |
| <font color="CC6600">**c**</font> | carbs |
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1)</b></font> A macronutrient causes starvation if and only if a macronutrient increases insulin.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∀x(Sx↔Nx))</b>
<br />
<b>P2)</b></font> Fat does not increase insulin, whereas carbs do.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(¬Nf∧Nc)</b>
<br />
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, fat does not cause starvation, whereas carbs do.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∴¬Sf∧Sc)</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Sx~4Nx)),(~3Nf~1Nc)|=(~3Sf~1Sc))
### Gary's Unedited Argument
| <font color="CC6600">**Variable**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definition**</font> |
|:----------------------------------------:|:------------------------------------------ |
| <font color="CC6600">**S**</font> | a macronutrient (x) causes starvation |
| <font color="CC6600">**N**</font> | a macronutrient (x) increases insulin |
| <font color="CC6600">**H**</font> | a macronutrient (x) causes hunger |
| <font color="CC6600">**f**</font> | fat |
| <font color="CC6600">**c**</font> | carbs |
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1)</b></font> A macronutrient causes starvation if and only if a macronutrient increases insulin and causes hunger.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∀x(Sx↔Nx∧Hx))</b>
<br />
<b>P2)</b></font> A macronutrient causes hunger if and only if a macronutrient increases insulin.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∀x(Nx↔Hx))</b>
<br />
<b>P3)</b></font> Fat does not increase insulin, whereas carbs do.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(¬Nf∧Nc)</b>
<br />
<b>P4)</b></font> Fat does not cause hunger, whereas carbs do.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(¬Hf∧Hc)</b>
<br />
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, fat does not cause starvation, whereas carbs do.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∴¬Sf∧Sc)</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Sx~4Nx~1Hx)),(~6x(Nx~4Hx)),(~3Nf~1Nc),(~3Hf~1Hc)|=(~3Sf~1Sc))
## Analysis
1. What the fuck does it mean to cause starvation?
---
## Hashtags
#debate
#debate_opponents
#clowns
#clownery

30
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/HairyVeganDude.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
# Debate 1
## Proposition
> "consuming processed oils are bad"
## Analysis
1. What does "processed" mean?
2. What does "bad" mean?
## Clarified Proposition
> "consuming X oils are Y" ???
## Line of Questioning:
1. What's the evidence?
1. ""
2. What is the argument that is this evidence is more expected on the hypothesis than the negation of the hypothesis?
1. An argument is required, because maybe the "evidence" is less or equally expected on the proposition (which would not be evidence for the proposition)
3. If he does provide an argument, examine the premises carefully
4. If a premise is unconvincing, ask for the argument for the premise
5. Repeat if necessary or until you become convinced
---
# Hashtags
#debate
#vegetable_oil
#clowns
#clownery
#debate_opponents

38
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Health Wealth Podcast.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
# Debate 1
## Proposition 1
>"Optimal health from a diet perspective is providing your body with all the nutrition it needs to thrive."
## Questions
1. What does it mean to thrive?
2. How is thriving measured?
3. Is it impossible to provide the body with all of these nutrients and still consume a diet that negatively impacts health?
# Debate 1
## Proposition 1
>"Optimal health from a diet perspective is providing your body with all the nutrition it needs to thrive."
## Questions
1. What does it mean to thrive?
2. How is thriving measured?
3. Is it impossible to provide the body with all of these nutrients and still consume a diet that negatively impacts health?
---
# Debate 2
## Proposition 2
>"An optimal diet does not require ANY supplementation"
## Questions
1. Is all that is meant is supplementation is not a requirement to have an optimal diet?
2. Is the claim actually that an optimal diet will never contain any supplements?
---
# Hashtags
#debate
#debate_opponents
#supplements

14
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Henry.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
# Debate 1
## Proposition
> "Pasture raised well treated animal products are more ethical than anything from large scale plant agriculture, because it directly causes less suffering & death and is better for the environment."
## Analysis
1. Why the fuck should I accept that? lmao
---
# Hashtags
#debate
#debate_opponents

25
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Highlander.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
# Debate 1
## Proposition
> "vegans want to play the definition game when definitions are set in stone"
## Analysis
1. definition game
1. using non-dictionary definitions
2. set in stone
1. in the dictionary
## Clarified Proposition
>vegans sometimes use non-dictionary definitions
## Notes
no fucking shit LMAO
# Hashtags
#debate
#debate_opponents
#clowns
#clownery
#vegan

64
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/ImDemonWolf.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
# Debate 1
## Proposition
> "bivalves are sentient because they have a brain."
## Argument
1. "The definition of brain needs to apply to all species... Not being such, it is speciesist intentionally.
2. If the definition of a brain doesn't apply to sponges, then your definition of brain is speciesist on your own lights.
### ImDemonWolf's Definition of a Brain
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|:-------------------------------------------:|:------------------------------------------------------- |
| <font color="CC6600">**B**</font> | something (x) is a brain |
| <font color="CC6600">**M**</font> | something (x) is a convoluted mass of nervous substance |
| <font color="CC6600">**S**</font> | something (x) is is encased within a skull |
| <font color="CC6600">**c**</font> | cerebral ganglia inside of a bivalve |
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1)</b></font> Something is a brain if, and only if, something is a convoluted mass of nervous substance and is encased within a skull.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∀x(Bx↔Mx∧Sx))</b>
<br />
<b>P2)</b></font> The cerebral ganglia inside of a bivalve is convoluted masses of nervous substance.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(Mc)</b>
<br />
<b>P3)</b></font> The cerebral ganglia inside of a bivalve is not encased within a skull.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(¬Sc)</b>
<br />
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, the cerebral ganglia inside of a bivalve is not a brain.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∴¬Bc)</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Bx~4Mx~1Sx)),(Mc),(~3Sc)|=(~3Bc))
## Analysis
1. If your definition of a brain is so broad that it captures structures like cerebral ganglia, I don't see how you're not committed to the proposition that my body contains multiple brains. Do you sign off on that?
## Receipts
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20230726122259.png]]
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20230726125553.png]]
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20230726125638.png]]
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20230726125705.png]]
---
# Hashtags
#debate
#debate_opponents

75
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Jake Mey.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,75 @@
# Debate 1
## Proposition
> "Vegan Fridays are harmful to children."
## Arguments
### Jake's Argument Against Vegan Fridays
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1)</b></font> If Vegan Friday meals are unhealthy for children, then it is wrong to feed a Vegan Friday meals to children once per week.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(P→Q)</b>
<br />
<b>P2)</b></font> If Vegan Friday meals are unhealthy for children.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(P)</b>
<br />
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, It is wrong to feed Vegan Friday meals to children once per week.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∴Q)</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(P~5Q),(P)|=(Q))
## Analysis
### Jake Consistency Checker
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1)</b></font> If children undereat plant foods more than they undereat animal foods, then Meatless Mondays are more likely result in nutritional adequacy in children compared to a policy that increases animal foods.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(P→Q)</b>
<br />
<b>P2)</b></font> Children undereat plant foods more than they undereat animal foods.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(P)</b>
<br />
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, Meatless Mondays are more likely result in nutritional adequacy in children compared to an intervention that increases animal foods.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∴Q)</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(P~5Q),(P)|=(Q))
1. To think Vegan Fridays meaningfully affect health negatively is hilarious
1. Assuming around 38 school weeks per year and one vegan meal per week, that's just (38/(365x3))x100=3% of the diet.
2. It's even lower when you consider that it's only a small proportion of the meal that is being replaced.
1. Assuming it's only a quarter of the diet, it would be ((38/4)/(365x3))x100=0.86% of the total diet.
---
# Hashtags
#debate
#debate_opponents
#clowns
#clownery
#plant_foods
#animal_foods
#public_health

58
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Jevan.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
# Debate 2
## Proposition
> "cows can't live if humans don't eat them."
## Analysis
1. on what modality?
1. what's the contradiction?
2. can you infer to that contradiction?
2. if not a modal claim, what is even being said?
---
# Debate 1
## Proposition
> "animal agriculture is morally superior because future cows want to live."
## Argument
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1)</b></font> If future cows will want to live, then future cows will be bred.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(P→Q)</b>
<br />
<b>P2)</b></font> Future cows will want to live.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(P)</b>
<br />
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, future cows will be bred.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∴Q)</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(P~5Q),(P)|=(Q))
## Analysis
1. What the fuck does it mean for a non-existent being to want something?
---
# Hashtags
#debate
#debate_opponents
#clowns
#clownery
#vegan
#agriculture
#animal_agriculture

252
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Joey Schwartz.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,252 @@
# Debate 2
## Evidence of Consent
[[📂 Media/PDFs/Gmail - Debate.pdf]]
## Proposition
> "the natural human diet is best for ensuring optimal health."
## Analysis
1. what is the natural human diet
2. what does health mean?
3. what does it mean for health to be ensured
4. what does optimal mean
5. what does best mean and is it different than optimal?
6. why include the word best if optimal already conveys the meaning?
## Clarified Proposition
> "All else equal, any diet consisting of less than 20% meat will not be likely to yield maximum longevity to a greater degree than a diet of greater than 80% meat."
## Line of Questioning:
1) Is this a scientific hypothesis?
1)
2) What's the evidence?
- "there is a tendency for natural diets to yield longevity relative to novel diets."
-
3) What is the argument that is this evidence is more expected on the hypothesis than the negation of the hypothesis?
- P1:
- P2:
- C:
"A scientific hypothesis is an empirically testable proposition that is used to explain something, and help us understand it by systematizing and unifying our knowledge."
---
# Debunk
[Carnivore Essay](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N9C9sqqtCG4VEx8wy-kZM2RCivihuFx8odRBn79DFng/edit)
---
## Claim #1
> "There is excellent research in support of ketosis as the natural human state that is a superior alternative to being fueled by glucose/fructose."
## Analysis
The provided literature does not provide support for the claim. Even if it is true that ketosis has benefits, that does not tell us anything about whether or not ketosis is "*the* natural human state". If it does, then why isn't fruit consumption considered to be the natural human state as well? Fruit consumption associates with enormous benefits [(1)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28446499/)[(2)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25073782/). What is the difference between the literature on ketosis that is untrue of the literature on fruit, such that the natural human state involves ketosis and the natural human state does not involve fruit consumption?
### Internal Critique
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|:-------------------------------------------:|:----------------------------------------------- |
| <font color="CC6600">**E**</font> | the exposure show benefits to human health |
| <font color="CC6600">**N**</font> | the exposure is part of the natural human state |
| <font color="CC6600">**f**</font> | fruit |
| <font color="CC6600">**k**</font> | ketosis |
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1)</b></font> If the exposure show benefits to human health, then the exposure is part of the natural human state.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∀x(Ex→Nx))</b>
<br />
<b>P2)</b></font> Fruit and ketosis show benefits to human health.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(Ef∧Ek)</b>
<br />
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, fruit and ketosis are part of the natural human state.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∴Nf∧Nk)</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Ex~5Nx)),(Ef~1Ek)|=(Nf~1Nk))
## Claim #2
>"The next reason why you should adopt a ketogenic carnivore diet is that carbohydrates are a poison"
## Analysis
The provided literature does not provide support for the claim, as they either pertain to hyperglycemia and hyperglycemia-induced glycation in T2DM, and mechanistic studies. The remaining points have no citations. In reality, many carbohydrate-rich whole foods are strongly inversely associated with the risk of disease [(3)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27537552/)[(4)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28140323/).
## Claim #3
>"Carbohydrates spike blood sugar, resulting in insulin secretion."
## Analysis
This proposition is phrased as though insulin is the mediator of some negative outcome. If true, it also would apply to meat. This is because beef might actually be just as insulinogenic as the average breakfast cereal [(5)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9356547/). Additionally, legumes seem to decrease both fasting glucose and fasting insulin when replacing even lean red meat [(6)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25351652/).
## Internal Critique
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|:-------------------------------------------:|:--------------------------------------------- |
| <font color="CC6600">**S**</font> | the exposure (x) results in insulin secretion |
| <font color="CC6600">**H**</font> | the exposure (x) is healthy |
| <font color="CC6600">**r**</font> | breakfast cereals |
| <font color="CC6600">**b**</font> | beef |
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1)</b></font> If the exposure results in insulin secretion, then the exposure is not healthy.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∀x(Sx→¬Hx))</b>
<br />
<b>P2)</b></font> Breakfast cereals and beef result in insulin secretion.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(Sr∧Sb)</b>
<br />
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, breakfast cereals and beef are not healthy.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∴¬Hr∧¬Hb)</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Sx~5~3Hx)),(Sr~1Sb)|=(~3Hr~1~3Hb))
## Claim #3
>"While fruits are a less harmful source of fructose than soda, due to the fiber and nutrients in fruit that slow or prevent the absorption of some fructose, fruit can still make us fat and sick. The fructose molecule in a blueberry is the same fructose in a coke. Fructose elimination is indispensable for a number of reason"
## Analysis
This is an equivocation. While free fructose could have detrimental effects on weight, fruit appears to have the opposite effect [(7)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31256714/)[(8)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31139631/). In fact, comprehensive meta-analysis consistently finds a strong inverse association between plant foods of many sorts and various diseases [(9)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30639206/). The provided references are about free fructose, not fruit. It is unclear what is meant by "sick" in this context, but a citation is needed for the claim.
## Claim #4
>"The plant’s techniques underpinning its desire to survive, along with the impact of these on human health, will be made strikingly clear"
## Analysis
Mechanistic speculation. The provided literature does not provide support for the claim. Superseded by better evidence, mentioned above.
## Claim #5
>"But don’t plant foods have antioxidants, which must counteract the negative effects associated with plant toxins and fiber? As the evidence points out, plant foods do not provide such a benefit."
## Analysis
What negative effects are associated with plant consumption? The provided references don't support the claim. Peluso et al. (2018) and Young et al. (2002) were only measuring intermediate markers, not hard outcomes. The reference on cancer risk is superseded by better evidence [(10)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28338764/).
Additionally, fibre intake is strongly inversely associated with all-cause mortality [(11)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25552267/)[(12)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25143474/). These associations survive adjustment for relevant confounders, such as smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, and physical activity. Lastly, the inverse association between fibre consumption and cardiovascular disease is linear [(13)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24355537/).
## Claim #6
>"A carnivorous ketogenic diet is best for human health because ruminant meat includes every nutrient we need in perfect ratios for optimal health. Plants, on the other hand, lack sufficient quantities of nutrients that are vital to sustaining life. These are the essential nutrients that are found in necessary quantities, if not completely exclusively, just in animal protein sources"
## Analysis
Mechanistic speculation. Despite the fact that sources of animal protein containing these beneficial nutrients and compounds, animal protein is almost universally associated with poorer health outcomes when replacing plant protein [(14)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33411911/)[(15)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32699048/).
## Claim #7
>"Despite alternative recommendations, a conclusive review of the available data reveals that meat does not cause cancer, and saturated fat is not the enemy"
## Analysis
For meat, it depends on the type of meat and the type of cancer. It is generally accepted that there is a relationship specifically between red meat and cancer among certain tissue types. For example, red meat consumption is associated with a dose-dependent increase in colorectal cancer risk [(16)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19350627/).
It should be noted that the magnitude of effect is technically greater than that of smoking, but likely non-inferior. If it is accepted that smoking increases colorectal cancer risk, then what's the difference between the two bodies of evidence that justifies the asymmetrical beliefs?
## Claim #8
>"Saturated fat was hypothesized to be bad because it leads to increased levels of LDL cholesterol, which scientists believed caused the health problems in the Western world. The belief that LDL is inherently bad is false"
## Analysis
Which scientists believed that LDL caused "the health problems of the Western world"? The provided references are superseded by better analyses with better inclusion/exclusion criteria and altogether superior methodology [(17)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32428300/)[(18)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20351774/).
Hooper et al. (2020) shows that reducing saturated fat lowers cardiovascular disease events (analysis 1.35). This effect is strongest when polyunsaturated fats are replacing saturated fats (analysis 1.44), and the relationship is likely mediated by changes in serum cholesterol (analysis 1.51). This relationship was also revealed via meta-regression analysis (table 4, regression 4). This is the exact relationship that we'd expect to see, based on wider research. [(19)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27673306/).
## Claim #9
>"A team of researchers at Tel Aviv University established the evidence behind the history of human hypercarnivory in a research paper"
## Analysis
Tangential. This can be granted, as it does not provide persuasive evidence that carnivore diets are optimally healthy in the long term for humans. Additionally, there are good reasons to be suspicious of foods to which we are most strongly adapted. This can be argued a priori.
If humans were heavily adapted to meat consumption, antagonistic pleiotropy could actually explain why foods like red meat associate so consistently with an increased risk of poorer health outcomes in the epidemiology [(20)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34284672/)[(21)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29137344/)[(22)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32011623/).
## Claim #10
>"Despite the difficulties, in 2021, Harvard University published an observational study of 2029 respondents who ate a carnivore diet for at least 6 months. Participants reported increased levels of wellbeing and health (Lennerz et al., 2021), but the most noteworthy results were in the complete resolution or improvement of the chronic conditions that existed prior to starting the carnivore diet"
## Analysis
This study is considerably weaker than the vast majority of prospective nutritional epidemiology. If nutritional epidemiology is to be given lower credence in favour of this study, what justifies the lower credence for nutritional epidemiology?
Additionally, if anything the biomarker results would seem to indicate that the carnivore diet could resist some of the benefits typically observed with significant weight loss. Lastly, the induction of the carnivore diet was commensurate with an increase in coronary artery calcification.
## References:
[1] Schwingshackl, Lukas, et al. ‘Food Groups and Risk of All-Cause Mortality: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prospective Studies’. _The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition_, vol. 105, no. 6, June 2017, pp. 1462–73. _PubMed_, https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.117.153148.
[2] Wang, Xia, et al. ‘Fruit and Vegetable Consumption and Mortality from All Causes, Cardiovascular Disease, and Cancer: Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies’. _BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.)_, vol. 349, July 2014, p. g4490. _PubMed_, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g4490.
[3] Li, Bailing, et al. ‘Consumption of Whole Grains in Relation to Mortality from All Causes, Cardiovascular Disease, and Diabetes: Dose-Response Meta-Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies’. _Medicine_, vol. 95, no. 33, Aug. 2016, p. e4229. _PubMed_, https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000004229.
[4] Benisi-Kohansal, Sanaz, et al. ‘Whole-Grain Intake and Mortality from All Causes, Cardiovascular Disease, and Cancer: A Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies’. _Advances in Nutrition (Bethesda, Md.)_, vol. 7, no. 6, Nov. 2016, pp. 1052–65. _PubMed_, https://doi.org/10.3945/an.115.011635.
[5] Holt, S. H., et al. ‘An Insulin Index of Foods: The Insulin Demand Generated by 1000-KJ Portions of Common Foods’. _The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition_, vol. 66, no. 5, Nov. 1997, pp. 1264–76. _PubMed_, https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/66.5.1264.
[6] Hosseinpour-Niazi, S., et al. ‘Substitution of Red Meat with Legumes in the Therapeutic Lifestyle Change Diet Based on Dietary Advice Improves Cardiometabolic Risk Factors in Overweight Type 2 Diabetes Patients: A Cross-over Randomized Clinical Trial’. _European Journal of Clinical Nutrition_, vol. 69, no. 5, May 2015, pp. 592–97. _PubMed_, https://doi.org/10.1038/ejcn.2014.228.
[7] Arnotti, Karla, and Mandy Bamber. ‘Fruit and Vegetable Consumption in Overweight or Obese Individuals: A Meta-Analysis’. _Western Journal of Nursing Research_, vol. 42, no. 4, Apr. 2020, pp. 306–14. _PubMed_, https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945919858699.
[8] Guyenet, Stephan J. ‘Impact of Whole, Fresh Fruit Consumption on Energy Intake and Adiposity: A Systematic Review’. _Frontiers in Nutrition_, vol. 6, 2019, p. 66. _PubMed_, https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2019.00066.
[9] Yip, Cynthia Sau Chun, et al. ‘The Associations of Fruit and Vegetable Intakes with Burden of Diseases: A Systematic Review of Meta-Analyses’. _Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics_, vol. 119, no. 3, Mar. 2019, pp. 464–81. _PubMed_, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2018.11.007.
[10] Aune, Dagfinn, et al. ‘Fruit and Vegetable Intake and the Risk of Cardiovascular Disease, Total Cancer and All-Cause Mortality-a Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis of Prospective Studies’. _International Journal of Epidemiology_, vol. 46, no. 3, June 2017, pp. 1029–56. _PubMed_, https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyw319.
[11] Yang, Yang, et al. ‘Association between Dietary Fiber and Lower Risk of All-Cause Mortality: A Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies’. _American Journal of Epidemiology_, vol. 181, no. 2, Jan. 2015, pp. 83–91. _PubMed_, https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwu257.
[12] Kim, Youngyo, and Youjin Je. ‘Dietary Fiber Intake and Total Mortality: A Meta-Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies’. _American Journal of Epidemiology_, vol. 180, no. 6, Sept. 2014, pp. 565–73. _PubMed_, https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwu174.
[13] Threapleton, Diane E., et al. ‘Dietary Fibre Intake and Risk of Cardiovascular Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis’. _BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.)_, vol. 347, Dec. 2013, p. f6879. _PubMed_, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f6879.
[14] Zhong, Victor W., et al. ‘Protein Foods from Animal Sources, Incident Cardiovascular Disease and All-Cause Mortality: A Substitution Analysis’. _International Journal of Epidemiology_, vol. 50, no. 1, Mar. 2021, pp. 223–33. _PubMed_, https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyaa205.
[15] Naghshi, Sina, et al. ‘Dietary Intake of Total, Animal, and Plant Proteins and Risk of All Cause, Cardiovascular, and Cancer Mortality: Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies’. _BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.)_, vol. 370, July 2020, p. m2412. _PubMed_, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m2412.
[16] Huxley, Rachel R., et al. ‘The Impact of Dietary and Lifestyle Risk Factors on Risk of Colorectal Cancer: A Quantitative Overview of the Epidemiological Evidence’. _International Journal of Cancer_, vol. 125, no. 1, July 2009, pp. 171–80. _PubMed_, https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.24343.
[17] Hooper, Lee, et al. ‘Reduction in Saturated Fat Intake for Cardiovascular Disease’. _The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews_, vol. 5, May 2020, p. CD011737. _PubMed_, https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011737.pub2.
[18] Mozaffarian, Dariush, et al. ‘Effects on Coronary Heart Disease of Increasing Polyunsaturated Fat in Place of Saturated Fat: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials’. _PLoS Medicine_, vol. 7, no. 3, Mar. 2010, p. e1000252. _PubMed_, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000252.
[19] Silverman, Michael G., et al. ‘Association Between Lowering LDL-C and Cardiovascular Risk Reduction Among Different Therapeutic Interventions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis’. _JAMA_, vol. 316, no. 12, Sept. 2016, pp. 1289–97. _PubMed_, https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.13985.
[20] Papier, Keren, et al. ‘Meat Consumption and Risk of Ischemic Heart Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis’. _Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition_, July 2021, pp. 1–12. _PubMed_, https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2021.1949575.
[21] Zhao, Zhanwei, et al. ‘Red and Processed Meat Consumption and Colorectal Cancer Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis’. _Oncotarget_, vol. 8, no. 47, Oct. 2017, pp. 83306–14. _PubMed_, https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.20667.
[22] Zhong, Victor W., et al. ‘Associations of Processed Meat, Unprocessed Red Meat, Poultry, or Fish Intake With Incident Cardiovascular Disease and All-Cause Mortality’. _JAMA Internal Medicine_, vol. 180, no. 4, Apr. 2020, pp. 503–12. _PubMed_, https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.6969.
---
# Hashtags
#debate
#debate_opponents
#clowns
#clownery
#carnivore
#vegan

47
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Jordan.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
# Debate 1
## Proposition
> "Plants have a general tendency to perform an action in ways that is consistent with their self organization."
## Argument
### Criteria for moral value
1. Autopoiesis
- self-organization
- self-maintenance
- self-regulation
- comprising a network of interrelated processes
- capable of renewing itself by regulating its composition and maintenance of form
- creating its own parts
- homeostasis
## Semantics
1. Homeostasis
- the tendency toward a relatively stable equilibrium between interdependent elements
2. Tendency
- an propensity to a particular characteristic.
## Analysis
### Reductio
| **Criteria** | **Atom** |
| ----------------------- | -------- |
| Tendency | Yes |
| Equilibrium | Yes |
| Interdependent elements | Yes |
1. Even atoms would qualify as having moral value.
---
## Hashtags
#debate
#philosophy
#sentience
#autopoiesis
#morality
#debate_opponents

83
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/JulyBurnsOrange.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,83 @@
# Debate 1
## Proposition
>It’s way more likely that seed oils are harmful to humans as opposed to the opposite.
## Analysis
1. "likely"
1. statistical term or a priori?
1. if statistical, what's the data?
2. if a priori, what's the argument?
1. they're novel foods, only consumed for the last 200 years?
2. refining process, rather than it being a novel food
1. novel food tho
1. arg: adaptation tho
1. weston a price tho
2. heavily flaws studies tho
1. ffqs tho
2. ~~refining food tho~~ adding compounds that strays too far from the natural **(conceded!)**
1. scenario: choline from eggs vs oil from soybeans in a blueberry smoothie
1. symmetry breaker: refining process specific to seed oils
1. needs to have seed oil refining process (all other processes presumed cool)
1. what about the refining?
1. neurotoxins (hexane?)
1. fibres in nose tho
2.
2. ~~what is meant by refining?~~
1. ~~adding neurotoxins?~~
3. monocropped agriculture tho
1. sprayed toxic chemicals (pesticides, etc)
1. doesn't know if there's evidence
1. appeals to anecdotes again
1. signed off on the shit and piss and cum stew, lol
2. how do we know the compounds
3. GMO allows higher doses
2. fewer nutrients, for "good" (means essential and non-essential) nutrients **(conceded!)**
1. multivitamins based then?
2. apples shit?
3.
4. anecdote tho
1. anecdote > data if n=1
1. signed off on the shit and piss and cum stew, lol
2. "harmful"
1. with respect to what?
1.
---
# Debate 2
## Proposition
>"it would be more vegan to abstain from monocropped agriculture" **CONCEDED!**
## Analysis
1. "more vegan"
1. more compatible with the VS definition
## Questions
**Cruelty** (signed off)
1. rewilding vs kidnapping and abandoning babies/kitten?
1. rewilding = not cruel
2. kidnapping = cruel
1. symmetry breaker 1: rewilding better for the environment
1. fewer toxins
2. produces more oxygen
1. didn't sign off/contradiction
2. symmetry breaker 2: rewilding returning the space to its natural state
1. didn't sign off/contradiction
**Exploitation**
1. signed off
---
# Hashtags
#debate
#debate
#debate_opponents

70
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Ken Berry.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
# Debate 1
## Proposition
> "Animal agriculture produces no unnecessary suffering."
## Argument
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1)</b></font> If farming cows necessitates suffering, then farming cows produces no unnecessary suffering.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(P→Q)</b>
<br />
<b>P2)</b></font> Farming cows necessitates suffering.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(P)</b>
<br />
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, farming cows produces no unnecessary suffering.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∴Q)</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(P~5Q),(P)|=(Q))
## Analysis
### Reductio
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1)</b></font> If stabbing babies necessitates suffering, then stabbing babies produces no unnecessary suffering.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(P→Q)</b>
<br />
<b>P2)</b></font> Stabbing babies necessitates suffering.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(P)</b>
<br />
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, stabbing babies produces no unnecessary suffering.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∴Q)</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
[Proof Tree]([Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(P~5Q),(P)|=(Q)))
---
# Malpractice Receipts
![[📂 Media/PDFs/ME012318.pdf]]
---
# Hashtags
#debate
#debate_opponents
#clowns
#clownery

54
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Kevin Bass.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
### Internal Critique For Kevin's Argument Against Seed Oils
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|:-------------------------------------------:|:--------------------------------------------------------- |
| <font color="CC6600">**F**</font> | people should go out of their way to consume the food (x) |
| <font color="CC6600">**N**</font> | the food (x) has been studied for all health outcomes |
| <font color="CC6600">**P**</font> | the food (x) is a novel food product |
| <font color="CC6600">**s**</font> | protein powder |
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1)</b></font> If people should go out of their way to consume the food, then the food has been studied for all health outcomes and the food is not a novel food product.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∀x(Fx→(Nx∧¬Px)))</b>
<br />
<b>P2)</b></font> Protein powder has not been studied for all health outcomes.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(¬Ns)</b>
<br />
<b>P3)</b></font> Protein powder is a novel food product.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(Ps)</b>
<br />
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, people should not go out of their way to consume protein powder..
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∴¬Fs)</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Fx~5(Nx~1~3Px))),(~3Ns),(Ps)|=(~3Fs))
---
# Taurine Fuckery
![[Pasted image 20220212202913.png]]
---
# Hashtags
#debate
#debate_opponents
#nutrient_deficiency
#clowns
#clownery
#taurine
#animal_foods
#vegan

17
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Liutauras.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
# Debate 1
## Proposition:
> "Burden of proof is on you to proof that schumans exists in reality, after all you are using them in your hypothetical."
## Notes
Conceded that he's agnostic about the existence of his own balls.
---
# Hashtags
#debate
#debate_opponents
#vegan
#ntt
#philosophy

48
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Logical Consistency.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
# Debate 1
## Proposition
>"we shouldn't be involved in influencing animals."
## ~~Definition of Veganism 1~~
>~~"veganism calls for the separation of humans and animals."~~
#### Questions
1. cool with the perpetual carnage machine so long as humans aren't involved?
1. answer: yes
### ~~Definition of Rights 1:~~
>~~"a mutual contract between humans."~~
#### Questions
1. do schmumans have rights?
1. answer: no
2. do retarded humans have rights?
1. answer: no
## Definition of Veganism 2
>"veganism calls not influencing animals in negative ways."
### Definition of Negative:
>"to be negative would be rights violations."
### Definition of Rights 2:
>"a mutual contract between beings with moral agency."
### Definition of Moral Agency:
>"having awareness of who your actions impact AND retaining the capacity to choose not to do perform said action."
#### Questions
1. axe murderer scenario?
1. answer: not immoral to withhold intervention.
2. retarded axe murderer scenario?
1. answer: immoral NOT to intervene
3. retarded axe murderer attacking retarded person
1. answer: immoral NOT to intervene
---
# Hashtag
#debate
#debate_opponents
#vegan

22
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Marek Doyle.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
## Proposition
> "You can't infer cause and effect from epidemiology."
## Analysis
1. can't on what modality?
1. what's the contradiction?
2. what's the argument for the contradiction?
## Notes
Turned out to be gibberish
---
# Hashtags
#debate
#debate_opponents
#clowns
#clownery
#epidemiology

32
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Matthew's Mind.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
# Debate 1
## Debate Conditions
1. It would be in my discord NOT yours.
2. Everything will be on my terms and conditions.
3. No interrupting.
4. No stupid philosophy.
5. No going of the topic that I chose.
6. No name the trait.
7. No ethics.
8. No appeal to authority with people like the Ada for example.
9. Just me and you in the call NO one else.
10. It will be pre recorded so no one can give you help during the debate ( although last time I did pre record someone did do that so plz just keep it me and you although if your scared I will edit it I’ll let you record it
11. No debating what diets the best purely debating the topic at hand.
12. No lying about what I’m saying / I’ll try not to lie about what you are saying.
13. No asking for study’s on simple science like b12 being in bacon for example ( last time I debated a vegan he was asking for study’s on iron being in meat lol ) I’d hope when debating you’d have some what basic intellect so I wouldn’t come with that type of research because it’s common sense to even most vegans.
14. No foul language
## Notes
Lol, get fucked
---
# Hashtags
#debate
#debate_opponents
#clowns
#clownery
#vegan

49
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Michael Hoglund.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
# Debate 1
### Melina's Animal Advocacy Argument
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|:-------------------------------------------:|:--------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| <font color="CC6600">**P**</font> | action (x) extracts pleasure from a sentient being (y) at its expense |
| <font color="CC6600">**M**</font> | action (x) is morally wrong |
| <font color="CC6600">**c**</font> | cows |
| <font color="CC6600">**d**</font> | dogs |
| <font color="CC6600">**e**</font> | eating cows |
| <font color="CC6600">**f**</font> | fucking dogs |
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1)</b></font> If an action extracts pleasure from a sentient being at its expense, then such an action is morally wrong.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∀x∀y(Pxy→Mx))</b>
<br />
<b>P2)</b></font> Eating cows extracts pleasure from cows at their expense.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(Pec)</b>
<br />
<b>P3)</b></font> Fucking dogs extracts pleasure from dogs at their expense.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(Pfd)</b>
<br />
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, eating cows and fucking dogs is morally wrong.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∴Me∧Mf)</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x~6y(Pxy~5Mx)),(Pec),(Pfd)|=(Me~1Mf))
---
# Hashtags
#debate
#debate_opponents
#vegan
#ntt

97
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Miguel.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,97 @@
## Proposition
>"It is more reasonable to believe that saturated fat-induced increases in serum cholesterol and/or LDL and/or ApoB will increase cardiovascular disease risk than it is to believe the opposite.""
## Argument
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1)</b></font> If measuring and controlling for "other factors" is required to establish a variable as an "independent causal agent", then in order to establish each "other factor" as an "independent causal agent", every other "other factor" needs to be measured and controlled for.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(P→Q)</b>
<br />
<b>P2)</b></font> Measuring and controlling for "other factors" is required to establish a variable as an "independent causal agent".
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(P)</b>
<br />
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, in order to establish each "other factor" as an "independent causal agent", every other "other factor" needs to be measured and controlled for.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∴Q)</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(P~5Q),(P)|=(Q))
## Analysis
1) Ask Miguel if he can recreate my position.
3) Ask Miguel if "other factors" are independent causal agents.
2) If no, ask why we should care about them or ask if they are confounders.
3) If yes, run syllogism below.
## Semantics
1. Independent causal agent
- when a risk factor retains its statistical association with the outcome when other factors for the outcome are included or excluded.
2. Other factors
- Obesity, especially visceral obesity
- Insulin resistance
- Hypertriglyceridemia
- Metabolic syndrome
- Type 2 diabetes
- HIV disease
- Low fat intake or diets enriched with polyunsaturated fat
- Cigarette smoking
- Liver disease
- Renal insufficiency
- Drugs
- Isotretinoin
- Sirolimus (rapamycin)
- Protease inhibitors
- Androgenic steroids
- Nonselective B-blockers
- Probucol
- Recombinant interleukin-2
- Moderate to severe hypertriglyceridemia
- Critical illness:
- sepsis
- burns
- small bowel exclusion
- Anabolic steroids
- Acquired LCAT deficiency
- decreased ApoA-I synthesis
- Severe cholestasis
- Cholestatic liver disease with liver failure
- Alcoholic hepatitis
- Acute viral hepatitis
- Alcoholic cirrhosis
- Partial hepatectomy (temporary)
- Stress
- Genetics
- Liver issues
- Physical activity
- Alcohol consumption
- Sugar consumption
## Receipts
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20220611214046.png]]
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20220611214100.png]]
---
# Hashtags
#debate
#debate_opponents
#clowns
#clownery
#philosophy
#propositional_logic
#de_morgans_laws

17
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Not nerf enuf.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
# Debate 1
## Proposition
> "bivalves are sentient."
## Analysis
1. Let's say there's a brain-dead baby who was born brain-dead. The only thing you know about them is that their brain has no activity and their cerebral ganglia are still active. There is no reason to believe the brain will gain additional activity on its own or can be brought to a state of activity. Do you pull the plug to give the family well-being? Keep in mind, the same amount of well-being is obtained by someone else harvesting and eating a ganglion-adjusted volume of oysters. Also, In this hypothetical, the only thing upon which to base an inference about sentience are the conditions specified above.
---
# Hashtags
#debate
#debate_opponents
#vegan
#bivalves

536
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Nurse Eric.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,536 @@
# Debate 5
## Proposition
>it is permissible to expose Eric's views by surreptitiously recording private conversations wherein he attempts to justify animal agriculture.
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|:-------------------------------------------:|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| <font color="CC6600">**H**</font> | one (x) engages in apologia for a holocaust of the innocent (y) |
| <font color="CC6600">**S**</font> | it is permissible to expose one's (x) grotesque views by surreptitiously recording private conversations wherein they attempt to justify said holocaust (y) |
| <font color="CC6600">**e**</font> | Eric |
| <font color="CC6600">**a**</font> | animal agriculture |
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1)</b></font> If one engages in apologia for a holocaust of the innocent, then it is permissible to expose one's grotesque views by surreptitiously recording private conversations wherein they attempt to justify said holocaust.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∀x∀y(Hxy→Sxy))</b>
<br />
<b>P2)</b></font> Eric engages in apologia for animal agriculture.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(Hea)</b>
<br />
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, it is permissible to expose Eric's views by surreptitiously recording private conversations wherein he attempts to justify animal agriculture.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∴Sea)</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x~6y(Hxy~5Sxy)),(Hea)|=(Sea))
---
# Debate 4?
## Notes
Subject has cucked.
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20230312154245.png]]
---
# Debate 3
## Eric's Definitions
**Sapience:**
""
**Right:**
"an entitlement [to a member of a sapient species] that would be wrong to deny."
**Moral obligation:**
"a responsibility to protect rights [of sapient species]."
**Consideration:**
""
**Moral Consideration:**
""
## Consent
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20221010212223.png]]
---
# Debate 2
## Eric's Prop With Common Definitions
>A diet of ruminant meat, poultry, fish, eggs, dairy, olives, avocado, lettuces, skinless and seedless cucumbers, and various squashes is higher in rank, status, or quality in an essential or natural way to a diet that focuses on plants, including vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, seeds, and nuts and limits or avoids animal products.
What does it mean for one diet to simply have a higher risk, status, or quality, compared to another? With respect to what standard?
---
# Debate 1
## Eric's Justifications for Eating Meat
1) we're all OK with eating animals
2) we have dominion over animals
3) we take care of animals before slaughter
4) animals are not homo sapiens
5) animals were not born of a human
6) animals do not have human cognition
7) animals are ancestral food
8) animals are perfect food
## Eric's Revised Justifications
"Animals are OK to kill and eat because..."
1) "All things will die and become food for other living things."
- Empirical claim. Requires proof.
- Cremation and body donation to medical research both disprove this.
- Why couldn't this same argument be used to justify killing and eating humans?
2) "Every species has a specific diet."
- Definition of "specific diet" required.
- Empirical claim. Requires proof.
- Humans are a part of many animals' [natural diet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-eater).
3) "Meat is the perfect food for humans."
- Definition of "perfect" required.
- Empirical claim. Requires evidence.
- Depending on the definition provided, humans may be the perfect food for some organisms. So would it not be justified to feed humans to these organisms?
4) "I would feel privileged to know my body will become future food when I die."
- Good for you? Hypothetically, if a race of organisms felt privileged to know their bodies would become future food when they die, would that make it OK for them to farm, kill, and eat you?
- If you take point one to be true, why would you phrase this point hypothetically?
5) "Animals living on regenerative AG farms live a privileged life."
- There are humans who live privileged lives. Is it OK to farm, kill, and eat humans?
---
# Arguments
### Privilege to Be Eaten Tho
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1)</b></font> If organism X is the perfect food for organism Y, then it would be a privilege for organism X to be eaten by organism Y.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(P→Q)</b>
<br />
<b>P2)</b></font> Organism X is the perfect food for organism Y.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(P)</b>
<br />
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, it would be a privilege for organism X to be eaten by organism Y.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∴Q)</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(P~5Q),(P)|=(Q))
#### Reductio
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|:-------------------------------------------:|:------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| <font color="CC6600">**P**</font> | organism X (x) is the perfect food for organism Y (y) |
| <font color="CC6600">**Q**</font> | it would be a privilege for organism X (x) to be eaten by organism Y (y) |
| <font color="CC6600">**h**</font> | humans |
| <font color="CC6600">**l**</font> | lions |
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1)</b></font> If organism X is the perfect food for organism Y, then it would be a privilege for organism X to be eaten by organism Y.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∀x∀y(Pxy→Qxy))</b>
<br />
<b>P2)</b></font> Humans are the perfect food for lions.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(Phl)</b>
<br />
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, it would be a privilege for humans to be eaten by lions..
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∴Qhl)</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x~6y(Pxy~5Qxy)),(Phl)|=(Qhl))
---
### Lifestyle Modification Tho
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1)</b></font> If the intervention is health promoting, then the intervention is a lifestyle modification intervention.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(P→Q)</b>
<br />
<b>P2)</b></font> The intervention is not a lifestyle modification intervention.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(P)</b>
<br />
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, the intervention is not health promoting.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∴Q)</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(P~5Q),(P)|=(Q))
#### Reductio
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|:-------------------------------------------:|:------------------------------------------------------------- |
| <font color="CC6600">****</font> | the intervention (x) is health promoting |
| <font color="CC6600">****</font> | the intervention (x) is a lifestyle modification intervention |
| <font color="CC6600">****</font> | TPN |
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1)</b></font> If the intervention is health promoting, then the intervention is a lifestyle modification intervention.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∀x(Px→Qx))</b>
<br />
<b>P2)</b></font> TPN is not a lifestyle modification intervention.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(¬Qt)</b>
<br />
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, TPN is not health promoting.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∴¬Pt)</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Px~5Qx)),(~3Qt)|=(~3Pt))
---
### Expensive Tissue Hypothesis Tho
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|:-------------------------------------------:|:--------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| <font color="CC6600">**E**</font> | the Expensive Tissue Hypothesis is true |
| <font color="CC6600">**H**</font> | food (x) provides more bioavailable energy than food (y) |
| <font color="CC6600">**M**</font> | then food (x) is preferable to food (y) with respect to mental health |
| <font color="CC6600">**m**</font> | meat |
| <font color="CC6600">**g**</font> | grains |
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1)</b></font> If the Expensive Tissue Hypothesis is true and X food provides more bioavailable energy than Y food, then X food is preferable to Y food with respect to mental health.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∀x∀y(E∧Hxy→Mxy))</b>
<br />
<b>P2)</b></font> The Expensive Tissue Hypothesis is true.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(E)</b>
<br />
<b>P3)</b></font> Meat provides more bioavailable energy than grains.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(Hmg)</b>
<br />
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, meat is preferable to grains with respect to mental health.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∴Mmg)</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x~6y(E~1Hxy~5Mxy)),(E),(Hmg)|=(Mmg))
#### Reductio
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|:-------------------------------------------:|:--------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| <font color="CC6600">**E**</font> | the Expensive Tissue Hypothesis is true |
| <font color="CC6600">**H**</font> | food (x) provides more bioavailable energy than food (y) |
| <font color="CC6600">**M**</font> | then food (x) is preferable to food (y) with respect to mental health |
| <font color="CC6600">**s**</font> | seed oils |
| <font color="CC6600">**m**</font> | meat |
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1)</b></font> If the Expensive Tissue Hypothesis is true and X food provides more bioavailable energy than Y food, then X food is preferable to Y food with respect to mental health.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∀x∀y(E∧Hxy→Mxy))</b>
<br />
<b>P2)</b></font> The Expensive Tissue Hypothesis is true.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(E)</b>
<br />
<b>P3)</b></font> Seed oils provides more bioavailable energy than meat.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(Hsm)</b>
<br />
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, seed oils are preferable to meat with respect to mental health.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∴Msm)</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x~6y(E~1Hxy~5Mxy)),(E),(Hsm)|=(Msm))
---
### Fostered Evolution Tho
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1)</b></font> If dietary pattern (x) fostered the evolution of homo sapiens, then dietary pattern (x) is intrinsically superior to dietary pattern (y) that did not foster the evolution of homo sapiens.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∀x∀y(Dx→Sxy))</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
Couldn't finish the syllogism because it was question begging. Eric clarified that "fostered the evolution of homo sapiens" and " intrinsically superior" were the same thing.
---
### Sapience Tho
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|:-------------------------------------------:|:----------------------------------------- |
| <font color="CC6600">**R**</font> | A species has rights |
| <font color="CC6600">**S**</font> | a species is sapient |
| <font color="CC6600">**h**</font> | homo sapiens |
| <font color="CC6600">**b**</font> | bos taurus |
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1)</b></font> A species has rights if, and only if, a species is sapient.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∀x(Rx↔Sx))</b>
<br />
<b>P2)</b></font> Homo sapiens sapiens are sapient.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(Sh)</b>
<br />
<b>P3)</b></font> Bos taurus are not sapient.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(¬Sb)</b>
<br />
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, Homo sapiens sapiens have rights and Bos taurus do not have rights.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∴Rh∧¬Rb)</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Rx~4Sx)),(Sh),(~3Sb)|=(Rh~1~3Rb))
#### Reductio
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|:-------------------------------------------:|:----------------------------------------- |
| <font color="CC6600">**R**</font> | A species has rights |
| <font color="CC6600">**S**</font> | a species is sapient |
| <font color="CC6600">**m**</font> | severely mentally handicapped people |
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1)</b></font> A species has rights if, and only if, a species is sapient.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∀x(Rx↔Sx))</b>
<br />
<b>P2)</b></font> Severely mentally handicapped people are sapient.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(¬Sm)</b>
<br />
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, Severely mentally handicapped people do not have rights.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∴¬Rm)</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Rx~4Sx)),(~3Sm)|=(~3Rm))
**Reference:**
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20221005212839.jpg]]
---
### Vegans Are Sophists Tho
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|:-------------------------------------------:|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| <font color="CC6600">****</font> | one (x) debates a moral topic (y) |
| <font color="CC6600">****</font> | one (x) does not engage in realizing their position on the moral topic (y) to the greatest degree practicable |
| <font color="CC6600">****</font> | one (x) is committed to sophistry |
| <font color="CC6600">****</font> | vegans |
| <font color="CC6600">****</font> | animal agriculture |
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1)</b></font> If one debates a moral topic and one does not engage in realizing their position on the moral topic to the greatest degree practicable, then one is committed to sophistry.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∀x∀y(Dxy∧¬Rxy→Sx))</b>
<br />
<b>P2)</b></font> Vegans debate the ethics of animal agriculture.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(Dva)</b>
<br />
<b>P3)</b></font> Vegans does not engage in realizing their position on the ethics of animal agriculture to the greatest degree practicable.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(¬Rva)</b>
<br />
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, Vegans are committed to sophistry.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∴Sv)</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x~6y(Dxy~1~3Rxy~5Sx)),(Dva),(~3Rva)|=(Sv))
#### Reductio
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|:-------------------------------------------:|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| <font color="CC6600">****</font> | one (x) debates a moral topic (y) |
| <font color="CC6600">****</font> | one (x) does not engage in realizing their position on the moral topic (y) to the greatest degree practicable |
| <font color="CC6600">****</font> | one (x) is committed to sophistry |
| <font color="CC6600">****</font> | Eric |
| <font color="CC6600">****</font> | regenerative agriculture |
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1)</b></font> If one debates a moral topic and one does not engage in realizing their position on the moral topic to the greatest degree practicable, then one is committed to sophistry.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∀x∀y(Dxy∧¬Rxy→Sx))</b>
<br />
<b>P2)</b></font> Eric debates the ethics of regenerative agriculture .
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(Der)</b>
<br />
<b>P3)</b></font> Eric does not engage in realizing his position on the ethics of regenerative agriculture to the greatest degree practicable.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(¬Rer)</b>
<br />
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, Eric is committed to sophistry.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∴Se)</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x~6y(Dxy~1~3Rxy~5Sx)),(Der),(~3Rer)|=(Se))
---
### Dog Molestation Reductio
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|:-------------------------------------------:|:------------------------------------------------------ |
| <font color="CC6600">**M**</font> | the animal (x) can understand freedom, life, and death |
| <font color="CC6600">**F**</font> | it is OK to sexually molest animal (x) |
| <font color="CC6600">**g**</font> | dogs |
| <font color="CC6600">**o**</font> | cows |
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1)</b></font> It is not OK to sexually molest an animal if and only if the animal understands freedom, life, and death.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∀x(¬Mx↔Fx))</b>
<br />
<b>P2)</b></font> Dogs do not understand freedom, life, and death.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(¬Fg)</b>
<br />
<b>P3)</b></font> Cows do not understand freedom, life, and death.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(¬Fo)</b>
<br />
<b>P4)</b></font> If it is OK to sexually molest cows, then it is OK to sexually molest dogs.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(Mo→Mg)</b>
<br />
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, it is OK to sexually molest dogs.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∴Mg)</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(~3Mx~4Fx)),(~3Fg),(~3Fo),(Mo~5Mg)|=(Mg))
---
## Hashtags
#debate
#debate_opponents
#clowns
#clownery
#vegan
#agriculture
#animal_agriculture

23
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/OhitsTeddy.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
# Debate 1
## Proposition
>"there is a causal association between mental illness and facial tattoos"
## Analysis
1. mental illness
1. how were the diagnoses obtained?
2. from what data are you drawing the causal inference?
1. if it's just an anecdote, what if a tattooist with equal experience reports the opposite?
## Receipts
![[Pasted image 20240420201851.png]]
![[Pasted image 20240420202003.png]]
---
# Hashtags
#debate
#debate_opponents

62
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Olicsa.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
# Debate 1
## Proposition
>"That carnivore/hyper-carnivore is best for optimal human health and is ethically appropriate."
## Analysis
1. what does "carnivore/hyper-carnivore" mean? If this is an inclusive disjunction, whichever diet is "less" carnivorous than the other will be one being argued for.
- ""
2. what does "ethically appropriate" mean? What sort of ethics (rights, utility, rules?), Appropriate with regards to what?
- ""
## Clarified Proposition 1
>"Red muscle meat diet with some bone marrow and salt supplies the nutrients that humans need to develop."
## Clarified Proposition 2
>"Red muscle meat diet with some bone marrow and salt is not shame-worthy."
## Clarified Proposition 3
>"Red muscle meat diet with some bone marrow and salt lacks phytochemicals that cause damage to the human body."
## Line of Questioning:
### What's the evidence?
1. Animal nutrients not found in plants
- Lack of animal foods causes nutritional deficiencies
- Brain size decreases with agriculture **(not evidence)**
2. Phytochemicals in plants
- Pesticides in plants are carcinogenic **(not evidence)**
3. Limited adaptations for eating plants
- Don't see carnivores benefitting from plants
4. Plants want to defend themselves with chemicals
5. Many anecdotes count in favour of the carnivore **(not evidence)**
6. Blue zones eat a lot of meat and live the longest **(not evidence)**
7. Carnivorous animals don't thrive on herbivorous diets **(not evidence)**
8. The removal of fibre could help constipation
- We can only break down a small amount of the fibre
9. RCTs show that animal fat is superior to plant fat
- MCE, SDHS, WHI **(not evidence)**
10. Paleolithic humans had the same life span as modern humans despite not having access to modern medicine **(not evidence)**
- Maasi live to be over 100 **(not evidence)**
11. Harvard carnivore study **(not evidence)**
## Cherry on top
Whatever he says, ask him if he would accept the same for X diet
---
# Hashtags
#debate
#debate_opponents
#clowns
#clownery
#carnivore
#philosophy

17
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Orgate.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
# Debate 1
## Proposition
>"A debate is a dialogue where one seeks to prove their own position and disprove their opponents position."
## Analysis
1. This is essentially just a proprietary conceptualization of the burden of proof. Some whacky dual/mutual burden of proof.
2. What about those who are agnostic?
---
# Hashtags
#debate
#debate_opponents
#clowns
#clownery

13
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Paul Mason.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
# Debate 1
## Receipts
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20230620190404.png]]
---
# Hashtags
#debate
#debate_opponents
#vegetable_oil

73
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Paul Saladino.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
# Debate 1
## Argument
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|:-------------------------------------------:|:----------------------------------------- |
| <font color="CC6600">**F**</font> | a food (x) as poor mineral yields |
| <font color="CC6600">**H**</font> | a food (x) is healthy |
| <font color="CC6600">**o**</font> | oatmeal |
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1)</b></font> If a food as poor mineral yields, then the food is not healthy.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∀x(Fx→¬Hx))</b>
<br />
<b>P2)</b></font> Oatmeal has poor mineral yields.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(Fo)</b>
<br />
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, oatmeal is not healthy.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∴¬Ho)</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Fx~5~3Hx)),(Fo)|=(~3Ho))
### Reductio
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|:-------------------------------------------:|:----------------------------------------- |
| <font color="CC6600">**F**</font> | a food (x) as poor mineral yields |
| <font color="CC6600">**H**</font> | a food (x) is healthy |
| <font color="CC6600">**n**</font> | honey |
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1)</b></font> If a food as poor mineral yields, then the food is not healthy.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∀x(Fx→¬Hx))</b>
<br />
<b>P2)</b></font> Oatmeal has poor mineral yields.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(Fn)</b>
<br />
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, oatmeal is not healthy.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∴¬Hn)</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Fx~5~3Hx)),(Fn)|=(~3Hn))
---
# Hashtags
#debate
#debate_opponents
#clowns
#clownery
#carnivore

16
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Question Begger.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
# Debate 1
## Proposition
>"if you support monocrop agriculture you're causing soil erosion"
## Notes
opponent conceded the prop
---
# Hashtag
#debate
#debate_opponents

52
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Rakhi Sawant.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
### Argument for Eating Animals
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|:-------------------------------------------:|:------------------------------------------------ |
| <font color="CC6600">**P**</font> | it is immoral to kill someone (x) |
| <font color="CC6600">**Q**</font> | someone (x) values their life |
| <font color="CC6600">**R**</font> | someone (x) has the capacity to value their life |
| <font color="CC6600">**a**</font> | a given animal |
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1)</b></font> For all things, it is immoral to kill someone if, and only if, someone values their life or someone has the capacity to value their life.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∀x(Px↔(Qx∨Rx)))</b>
<br />
<b>P2)</b></font> A given animal do not value their life.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(¬Qa)</b>
<br />
<b>P3)</b></font> A given animal does not have the capacity to value their life.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(¬Ra)</b>
<br />
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, it is not immoral to kill a given animal.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∴¬Pa)</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Px~4(Qx~2Rx))),(~3Qa),(~3Ra)|=(~3Pa))
## Analysis
1. On what modality is it impossible for animals to value their lives?
- an adjective
2. What is the contradiction on that modality?
- a proposition in conjunction with its negation
3. Can you argue to that contradiction?
- an argument with premises and a conclusion
---
# Hashtags
#debate
#debate_opponents

54
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Rick Moore.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
# Debate 1
## Proposition
> "seed oils are poison."
## Argument
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|:-------------------------------------------:|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| <font color="CC6600">**M**</font> | food (x) is poison |
| <font color="CC6600">**P**</font> | food (x) was created by a food industry that is largely controlled by marketing budgets of companies with no motivational avenue other than to promote addictions |
| <font color="CC6600">**s**</font> | seed oils |
| <font color="CC6600">**w**</font> | whole foods |
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1)</b></font> The food is poison if, and only, if the food was created by a food industry that is largely controlled by marketing budgets of companies with no motivational avenue other than to promote addictions.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∀x(Mx↔Px))</b>
<br />
<b>P2)</b></font> Seed oils were created by a food industry that is largely controlled by marketing budgets of companies with no motivational avenue other than to promote addictions.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(Ms)</b>
<br />
<b>P3)</b></font> Whole foods were not created by a food industry that is largely controlled by marketing budgets of companies with no motivational avenue other than to promote addictions.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(¬Mw)</b>
<br />
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, seed oils are poison and whole foods are not poison.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∴Ps∧¬Pw)</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Mx~4Px)),(Ms),(~3Mw)|=(Ps~1~3Pw))
## Analysis
1. Argument for P1?
---
# Hashtags
#clowns
#clownery
#debate
#debate_opponents

43
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Rob Hanna.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
# Debate 1
## Proposition
> "someone is a woman if they have a female reproductive system."
## Reductio
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|:-------------------------------------------:|:------------------------------------------------- |
| <font color="CC6600">**W**</font> | someone (x) is a woman |
| <font color="CC6600">**R**</font> | someone (x) has reproductive organs to give birth |
| <font color="CC6600">**m**</font> | Olivia Munn |
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1)</b></font> Someone is a woman if, and only if, someone has female reproductive organs to give birth.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∀x(Wx↔Rx))</b>
<br />
<b>P3)</b></font> Olivia Munn does not have female reproductive organs to give birth.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(¬Rm)</b>
<br />
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, Olivia Munn is not a woman.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∴¬Wm)</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Wx~4Rx)),(~3Rm)|=(~3Wm))
---
# Hashtag
#debate
#debate_opponents
#transgender

31
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Robbie Puddick.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
# Debate 1
## Proposition
>"saturated fat is not a major causal contributor to heart disease process"
## Argument
1. displacement effect (displacing heart healthy fats)
2. use butter to the degree that recipes call for it
## Analysis
1. carbs tho
- resolved by Mensink 2016
2. low fat guidelines tho
- irrelevant, randomized
3. data quality tho
- LA Veterans was uber based
---
# Hashtags
#debate
#debate_opponents
#clowns
#clownery
#saturated_fat
#LDL
#cardiovascular_disease

40
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Sameer Dossani.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
# Debate 1
>"These principles disprove the idea that eating meat or saturated fat causes heart attacks." - Sameer Dossani
## Analysis
1. **"we care about heart disease, we don't care about cholesterol."**
1. ApoB is the causal agent [(1)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32203549/).
2. GWAS show ApoB is linearly associated across numerous mechanisms [(2)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30694319/). ![[Pasted image 20220628124254.png]]
3. LDL-C as a proportional relationship to ASCVD risk [(3)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27673306/). ![[Pasted image 20220628124445.png]]
4. LDL-C correlates with risk when other risk factors are optimized [(4)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29241485/). ![[Pasted image 20220628124922.png]]
5. Discordance can explain the lack of association at lower LDL-C [(5)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15296705/)
2. **"cholesterol is necessary for life."**
3. **"heart disease is a modern phenomenon."**
1. Traditional populations still get ASCVD [(6)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23489753/).
4. **"there are non-western, historic populations that don't suffer from heart disease."**
1. The Maasai still get ASCVD[(7)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/5007361/).
2. The Inuit still get ASCVD[(8)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2206175/)[(9)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12535749/).
3. Inuit mummies still show ASCVD [(10)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31880790/).
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.034032
![[Pasted image 20220628135128.png]]
---
# Hilarious Argument
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20230723135007.png]]
---
# Hashtags
#debate
#debate_opponents
#clowns
#clownery
#LDL
#cardiovascular_disease

67
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Seed Oil Dodging Cucks.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
Adam Pollock (aIIegoricaI)
Adam Singer (AdamSinger)
Andy Scott (AndyJScott)
Austin Herbert (_AustinHerbert)
Ally Houston (AllyTransforms)
Anthony Gustin (dranthonygustin)
Bart Kay (Bart_WT_Kay)
Ben Bikman (BenBikmanPhD)
Brad Cohn (BradCohn)
Brad Marshall (fire_bottle)
Brian Kerley (SeedOilDsrspctr)
Brian Sanders (FoodLiesOrg)
Cate Shanahan (drcateshanahan)
Chris Boettcher (chrisboettcher9)
Chris Knobbe (ChrisKnobbeMD)
Clara Aboel-Nil (AIWellnessCoach)
Corey Nelson (ZeroAcreFarms)
David Gornoski (DavidGornoski)
Elie Jarrouge (ElieJarrougeMD)
Eric Levinson (connected_dad)
Gary Brecka (garybrecka1)
Gary Fettke (FructoseNo)
Guy Austin (GuyNAustin)
Ivor Cummins (FatEmperor)
James DiNicolantonio (drjamesdinic)
Jeff Nobbs (jeffnobbs)
Joseph Everett (JEverettLearned)
Justin Mares (jwmares)
Kait Malthaner (healthcoachkait)
Kem Minnick (kemminnick)
Ken Berry (KenDBerryMD)
Kristie Leong (DrKristieLeong)
Lori Shemek (LoriShemek)
Mark Sisson (Mark_Sisson)
Max Lugavere (maxlugavere)
Michael Kummer (mkummer82)
Michael Padula (MJPadula)
Mike Mutzel (MikeMutzel)
Nina Teicholz (bigfatsurprise)
Paul Mason (DrPaulMason)
Paul Saladino (paulsaladinomd)
Peter InNorfolk (Peter_InNorfolk)
Raphael Sirtoli (raphaels7)
Robert Lufkin (robertlufkinmd)
Ryan Walker (Cooking_it_Keto)
Sama Hoole (SamaHoole)
Samar Sheoran (samarsheoran)
Seed Oil Scout (SeedOilScout)
Sergi Escanes (SergiEscanes)
Shashi Iyengar (shashiiyengar)
Shraddhey Katiyar (Wegiveyouhealt1)
Simon Goddek (goddeketal)
Travis Statham (Travis_Statham)
Tristan Haggard (Trxstxn4)
Tucker Goodrich (TuckerGoodrich)
Vinnie Tortorich (VinnieTortorich)
Zoe Harcombe (zoeharcombe)
---
# Hashtags
#debate
#debate_opponents
#clowns
#clownery
#vegetable_oil

42
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Shawn Baker.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
# Debate 1
## Internal Critique of Shawn's Trait
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|:-------------------------------------------:|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| <font color="CC6600">**P**</font> | beings (x) are morally permissible to kill for food the way we kill cows for food |
| <font color="CC6600">**H**</font> | beings (x) are human (homo sapiens sapiens) |
| <font color="CC6600">**e**</font> | homo erectus |
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1)</b></font> If beings are not morally permissible to kill for food the way we kill cows for food, then the beings are human (homo sapiens sapiens).
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∀x(¬Px→Hx))</b>
<br />
<b>P2)</b></font> Homo erectus are not human.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(¬He)</b>
<br />
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, homo erectus are morally permissible to kill for food the way we kill cows for food.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∴Pe)</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(~3Px~5Hx)),(~3He)|=(Pe))
---
# Hashtags
#clowns
#clownery
#debate_opponents
#debate
#carnivore

14
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Sir Tater.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
# Debate 1
## Proposition
>"seed oils, when eaten to the exclusion of animal fats, increase the risk of heart disease and stroke."
## Analysis
1. what's the evidence for that?
# Hashtags
#debate
#debate_opponents

111
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/StormblessedJ.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,111 @@
# Debate 1
## Proposition
>"something has a soul if it has the capacity for human-level intelligence and has a consciousness"
## Semantics
1. capacity for intelligence
- 16B neurons
---
# Debate 2
### Pepsi Monodiet Reductio
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|:-------------------------------------------:|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| <font color="CC6600">**S**</font> | the consumption of (x) something has only been studied in the context of consuming (y) something else |
| <font color="CC6600">**T**</font> | it is known what effects (x) something has in the absence of (y) something else |
| <font color="CC6600">**R**</font> | it is rational to consume a monodiet of (x) something |
| <font color="CC6600">**m**</font> | meat |
| <font color="CC6600">**c**</font> | plants |
| <font color="CC6600">**p**</font> | Pepsi |
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1)</b></font> If the consumption of something has only been studied in the context of consuming something else, then it is not known what effects something has in the absence of something else.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∀x∀y(Sxy→¬Txy))</b>
<br />
<b>P2)</b></font> It is reasonable to consume a monodiet of something if and only if it is not known what effects something has in the absence of something else.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∀x∀y(Rx↔¬Txy))</b>
<br />
<b>P3)</b></font> The consumption of meat has only been studied in the context of plant consumption.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(Sma)</b>
<br />
<b>P4)</b></font> The consumption of Pepsi has only been studied in the context of meat consumption.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(Spm)</b>
<br />
<b>P5)</b></font> If is not known what effects meat has in the absence of plants, then it is not known what effects Pepsi has in the absence of meat.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(¬Tma→¬Tpm)</b>
<br />
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, it is rational to consume a monodiet of Pepsi.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∴Rp)</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x~6y(Sxy~5~3Txy)),(~6x~6y(Rx~4~3Txy)),(Sma),(Spm),(~3Tma~5~3Tpm)|=(Rp))
---
# Debate 1
### Argument for High Quality Research
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|:-------------------------------------------:|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| <font color="CC6600">**H**</font> | A study (x) counts as high quality |
| <font color="CC6600">**U**</font> | A study can be applied to anyone universally on a population level (meaning perfect external validity) |
| <font color="CC6600">**e**</font> | An experiment with humans in a lab under constant observation and controls for life or a direct mechanism |
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1)</b></font> A study counts as high quality if, and only if, the study can be applied to anyone universally on a population level (meaning perfect external validity).
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∀x(Hx↔Ux))</b>
<br />
<b>P2)</b></font> An experiment with humans in a lab under constant observation and controls for life or a direct mechanism can not be applied to anyone universally on a population level (meaning imperfect external validity).
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(¬Ue)</b>
<br />
<b>P3)</b></font> An experiment with humans in a lab under constant observation and controls for life or a direct mechanism counts as high quality.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(He)</b>
<br />
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, it is and it not the case that an experiment with humans in a lab under constant observation and controls for life or a direct mechanism counts as high quality.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∴He∧¬He)</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Hx~4Ux)),(~3Ue),(He)|=(He~1~3He))
---
# Hashtags
#debate
#debate_opponents
#clowns
#clownery

5
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Superbaboon.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
![[Pasted image 20240522154005.png]]
![[Pasted image 20240522154012.png]]
![[Pasted image 20240522154016.png]]
![[Pasted image 20240522154511.png]]
![[Pasted image 20240522155210.png]]

18
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Taylor.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
# Debate 1
## Proposition
>"nutrition science is not an exact science"
## Analysis
1. what does "exact" mean?
2. what qualifies as an exact science?
---
# Hashtag
#debate
#debate_opponents
#epidemiology

22
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Travis Statham.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
# Debate 1
## Proposition
> "It is more reasonable to believe that seed oils are not a significant, independent concern for the development of cardiovascular disease and/or cancer and/or type 2 diabetes and/or non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and/or obesity than it is to believe the opposite."
## Notes
The subject has [declined](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1533109830436757510?s=20&t=bzh2Z_94W32IpNNdez6OiQ) the debate invite, stating that he does not have enough knowledge on the subject to debate it with me. So maybe someone else would enjoy stepping up to the plate instead.
## Receipts
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20220513172043.png]]
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20220513152753.png]]
---
# Hashtags
#debate
#debate_opponents
#clowns
#clownery
#travis_statham

443
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Tucker Goodrich.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,443 @@
### Primitive cultures tho
<div style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;">
Chronic Disease Claims:
</div>
> 1) Chronic diseases are not caused by known pathogens or acute toxins, and typically are found in societies that have an advanced level of agriculture, and universally in countries that have adopted industrial methods of food production; but are absent in those that have primitive methods of agriculture, or depend on hunting and gathering. As far as I am aware, there is not a single population that does not eat seed oils that suffers from the chronic diseases.
<div style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;">
Response:
</div>
Drawing conclusions about the health value of traditional diets (or the health value of novel foods) by reference to the apparent health status of traditional cultures is an error. There are too many epistemic barriers. The details on this matter are summarized [here](https://www.the-nutrivore.com/post/should-we-eat-like-hunter-gatherers). Plus, it's [not even true](https://discord.gg/gzknNUw5hB) that ancestral or primitive populations are free of chronic disease.
Tucker's looking at ecological associations. We can also posit many things that these populations don't have access to, that modern populations with chronic disease have access to. Causal inference from this association [is dubious](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24567587/), because it does not explore what happens to individuals in a modern context when they are actually consuming vegetable oils.
When those higher internal validity investigations are done and meta-analytically summated, we see an inverse relationship between vegetable oil intake and many chronic diseases.
### LDL Oxidation Tho
<div style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;">
Oxidized LDL Claims:
</div>
> 1) The European Atherosclerosis Society endorses the idea that oxidized LDL is the major initiator of atherosclerosis.
<div style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;">
Response:
</div>
For the first point, Tucker cites Figure 3 from the European Atherosclerosis Society's [second consensus statement paper](https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/41/24/2313/5735221).
![[Pasted image 20220208185617.png]]
If we turn our attention to Figure 1, the first step is actually LDL particle concentration driving intimal infiltration and retention. They are very clear in their model that proteoglycan-mediated retention of LDL precedes LDL oxidation in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis. It's also clear that aggregated LDL contribute to atherosclerosis through a separate pathway and isn't mediated by oxidative modification of LDL.
![[Pasted image 20220208185647.png]]
Tucker also leaves out the first part of the section he chooses to quote, which states that **all** LDL particles exert atherogenicity. Oxidative susceptibility is listed as a single variable.
However, the authors of the reference for this claim have [different views on the matter](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15166804/). As they correctly state that n-6 polyunsaturated fat intake is associated with a decreased CHD risk, despite the increase in the susceptibility of LDL particles to oxidize. Meaning that despite whatever increase in LDL oxidation that is conferred through a diet higher in n-6 polyunsaturated fat, it may not be enough to offset the benefits of the n-6 polyunsaturated fat on CHD risk in the aggregate.
We can simultaneously accept that LDL oxidation is part of the causal pathway without having to grant that vegetable oils increase the risk of CHD. Furthermore, we could even accept that vegetable oils increase LDL oxidation, but we also wouldn't have to grant that vegetable oils increase the risk of CHD on that basis either. These are all different research questions, again.
> 2) M. S. Brown & Goldstein 1990, attempted to use ApoB (LDL) to induce macrophages to become foam cells, which was thought to be the first step in atherosclerosis, and thus CHD. It failed. OxLDL, however, succeeded (Steinberg et al. 1989). Which is why their paper is titled “Beyond cholesterol. Modifications of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) that increase its atherogenicity.” LDL, ApoB—what we often call ‘cholesterol’—doesn’t without oxidation induce atherosclerosis. This is the ONLY explanation we have for this process now.
The second point is a red herring. We can fully grant that oxLDL are a part of the causal pathway toward ASCVD. However, we don't also have to grant that vegetable oils would increase ASCVD risk, despite them perhaps increasing LDL oxidation. Those are two different research questions. The data that he cites here contains no information about CHD risk. Again, it is a mechanism, from which he extrapolates to risk without corroborating data.
Also, [Borén et al. 2020](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32052833/) states very clearly that the concentration of LDL particles drives intimal retention, and that intimal retention precedes LDL oxidation in the causal pathway. To claim that oxLDL is the "only" explanation for the process is to not understand the causal model.
### Heart Disease Tho
<div style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;">
Atherosclerosis Claims:
</div>
> 1) The beneficial effects of the Mediterranean diet on LDL oxidation are easily explained by the MUFA/PUFA balance of the diets, because oleic acid is better at replacing linoleic acid in LDL particle membranes.
<div style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;">
Response:
</div>
To the first point, there is a study of a [fast food Mediterranean diet](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17887946/) wherein the MUFA:PUFA ratio remained virtually identical from the pre- to post-diet phase for group A (diabetic subjects), going from 2:1 (pre-intervention) to 2.1:1 (post-intervention). The result was one of the most significant increases in the lag time to LDL oxidation I've ever observed in the literature from diet alone. This is despite an increase in PUFA.
> 2) Vitamin E has failed to show benefit for heart disease prevention because vitamin E can cause LDL to oxidize.
For the second point, This is reconcilable with the accepted pathophysiology of atherosclerosis (the response to retention hypothesis), as detailed in the European Atherosclerosis Society's landmark papers on the subject. The causal model that has been accepted by the scientists within this domain places LDL oxidation downstream in the pathway (preceded by intimal retention). Once LDL are retained, oxidation is inevitable. This is why LDL oxidation has never really panned out as a viable way to modify ASCVD risk.
Even if it were true that vitamin E can cause LDL to oxidize it would be red herring, because it's also true that high enough doses of supplemental vitamin E either [functionally abolish the effect of linoleic acid on LDL oxidation](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8148354/) or [significantly attenuates the susceptibility of LDL to oxidize](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10781654/). Other antioxidants like [vitamin C](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23279831/) and [polyphenols](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15168036/) can also lower LDL's susceptibility of oxidation.
> 3) The Lyon Diet-Heart Study is the only test of lowering linoleic acid for CVD risk improvement, and was one of the most successful diet trials ever conducted.
For the third point, Tucker attributes the 73% reduction in myocardial infarction risk observed in the [Lyon Diet-Heart Study](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7911176/) to a 4.5g/day difference in linoleic acid, despite the fact that the trial was a multifactorial intervention that improved diet quality in multiple ways.
We have directly tested the effect of modifying the linoleic acid content of the diet on CVD risk. The [Oslo Diet-Heart Study](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/5477261/), [Los Angeles Administration Hospital Study](https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/01.CIR.40.1S2.II-1), or the [Medical Research Council Study](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4175085/) are all studies that specifically substituted high linoleic acid fats for saturated fat and saw reductions in CVD risk. So, why should we grant him that such a paltry contrast in exposure would produce such a massive decrease in risk, when the rest of the literature on the subject suggests that much higher intakes actually decrease risk?
But even if we entertained Tucker's notion, we can turn to the [wider body of literature](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20351774/) seeing decreased risk with higher intakes of LA to find a defeater. This can be syllogized like this:
### Lyon Diet Heart Tho
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1)</b></font> If increasing LA beyond 5% of energy increases AMI risk, then increasing LA beyond 5% of energy doesn't lower AMI risk..
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(P→¬Q)</b>
<br />
<b>P2)</b></font> Increasing LA beyond 5% of energy lowers AMI risk.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(Q)</b>
<br />
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, increasing LA beyond 5% of energy doesn't increase AMI risk.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∴¬P)</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(P~5~3Q),(P)|=(~3Q))
> 4) One must dig deep to cherry-pick Hooper et al 2020 to support the claim that vegetable oils decrease the risk of ASCVD. All these decades of research, and we’re left with “little or no effect”. That’s the best we can do?
For next point, Tucker is the one cherry-picking [their summary](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32428300/) in order to make his point. The summary primarily reports on mortality data, which is less sensitive than total events (which the summary states was a significant finding).
If you were to read analyses 1.35, 1.44, and 1.51, they divulge that lowering SFA lowers total CVD events, the effect is strongest when PUFA replaces SFA, and the CVD risk reduction is a function of the magnitude in serum cholesterol reduction. It is also divulged in figure 6 that serum cholesterol functions as a significant moderator variable between SFA and CVD in their meta-regression analysis. Tucker needs to unpack how this qualifies as cherry-picking.
### Mercodia Test Tho
<div style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;">
4E6 Antibody Assay Claims:
</div>
> 1) The Mercodia 4E6 antibody assay used to measure oxidized LDL has such poor sensitivity that it essentially just provides you with a measure of ApoB, due to it making such poor distinctions between oxidized LDL and native LDL. As evidenced by the R<sup>2</sup> for oxLDL and native LDL being >0.70.
<div style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;">
Response:
</div>
Firstly, Tucker misunderstands how the [4E6 assay works](https://www.mercodia.com/product/oxidized-ldl-elisa/#:~:text=Mercodia%20Oxidized%20LDL%20ELISA%20is,epitope%20in%20oxidized%20ApoB-100.&text=Substituting%20aldehydes%20can%20be%20produced,the%20generation%20of%20oxidized%20LDL). It captures both minimally and maximally oxidized ApoB that have a minimum number of lysine residues modified by aldehydes. The assay uses an antibody that binds to ApoB after at least 60 lysine residues have been modified. The antibody doesn't bind unless this minimum threshold of lysine residue modification has been crossed. This is significant because that is the threshold that forecloses LDL-receptor binding and opens scavenger-receptor binding.
Merely stating that oxLDL and LDL (as measured by the 4E6 assay) are strongly correlated doesn't actually mean that the 4E6 test is invalid and making poor distinctions between oxLDL and LDL. This is a similar mistake to one [that Tsimikas made](https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/01.CIR.0000164264.00913.6D?related-urls=yes&legid=circulationaha%3B111%2F18%2Fe284) while defending his preference for a different assay, the E06 antibody assay. It's not clear how Tucker or Tsimikas come to their conclusions, because all it could mean is that these potentially distinct markers tend to covary.
It is expected that oxLDL (as measured by 4E6) would correlate well with ApoB if it is also detecting trivially oxidized LDL. This shouldn't be revelatory to us, and again, a high correlation doesn't demonstrate low sensitivity for the test. Tucker needs to explain why a high correlation between variables entails low sensitivity for a test that aims to make distinctions between them. This is like saying that shoe size is a poor measurement of foot size because foot size and height are tightly correlated. Like, what? That doesn't even make any sense.
> 2) The conclusion of (Wu et al., 2006) is correct, but the results are meaningless as to causation, as they are adjusting a measure of oxLDL by itself, effectively. Of course there is no additional correlation.
Secondly, oxLDL is not being adjusted by itself, and it is absurd to think that it is. That actually doesn't make any sense. They were testing the explanatory power of each marker in a mutually adjusted model. The results of those mutual adjustments contradict the hypothesis that the 4E6 assay makes poor distinctions between oxLDL and native LDL.
If the 4E6 assay was truly making poor distinctions between oxLDL and native LDL, the results of the LRT by [Wu et al. (2006)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16949489/) would suggest extreme multicollinearity as indicated [similarly (enormously) wide confidence intervals](https://statisticsbyjim.com/regression/multicollinearity-in-regression-analysis/) for both results. If oxLDL and native LDL were proxying for one another in the model, we'd expect the confidence intervals for each relative risk to be inflated and more likely non-significant because of how the standard error would be effected. Instead of seeing this, we actually see evidence of independence and precision between oxLDL (as measured by 4E6) and ApoB.
On balance of probabilities, within that dataset it is not only less likely to be the case that risk is more closely tracking oxLDL, there is also no evidence for it and evidence against it.
The entire argument can be expressed syllogistically with modus tollens:
### 4E6 Sensitivity Tho
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1)</b></font> If extreme multicollinearity is characterized by low precision and occurs when proxies are included in the same model and the 4E6 antibody assay poorly distinguishes between oxLDL and ApoB, then including oxLDL and ApoB in the same model produces evidence of extreme multicollinearity.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(P∧Q→R)</b>
<br />
<b>P2)</b></font> Extreme multicollinearity is characterized by low precision and occurs when proxies are included in the same model.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(P)</b>
<br />
<b>P3)</b></font> Including oxLDL and ApoB in the same model does not produce evidence of extreme multicollinearity.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(¬R)</b>
<br />
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, the 4E6 antibody assay does not poorly distinguish between oxLDL and ApoB.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∴¬Q)</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(P~1Q~5R),(P),(~3R)|=(~3Q))
Lastly, If oxPL and ApoB tend to correlate, then regression analysis may not find a significant correlation between oxPL/ApoB and ApoB. This is because the ratio would remain largely constant across the spectrum of ApoB. But again, it's not as though the correlation between markers contains any information about the sensitivity of the tests used to make distinctions between those markers. This seems to be an error that Tucker consistently makes.
### Lung Cancer Tho
<div style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;">
Lung Cancer Claims:
</div>
> 1) The IARC has a 95-page monograph on cooking oils and lung cancer.
<div style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;">
Response:
</div>
It is important to emphasize that the [IARC monograph](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK385523/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK385523.pdf) only contains case-control studies. Case-control studies are retrospective in nature and cannot be used to assess temporality. This means that they are extremely ill-equipped to inform causal inference. The associations may be interesting, but they are not consistently in the direction Tucker would presuppose.
In most of the analyses, it is unknown if vegetable oils are truly the source of the "fumes" or "kitchen smoke" that they are discussing. To try to get around this, we can aggregate all of the data that was specific to cooking with vegetable oils. In an attempt to make sure that lower PUFA oils were always the comparator, we will also need to invert some of the risk ratios. Here are the results:
**Random-Effects Model**
![[Pasted image 20220208205838.png]]
**Fixed-Effects Model**
![[Pasted image 20220208205920.png]]
In the aggregate, cooking with higher PUFA oils results in a non-significant decrease in lung cancer risk. Random Effects: RR 0.93 (CI 0.68-1.27), P=0.64. Fixed Effects: RR 0.91 (CI 0.78-1.05), P=0.20.
Neither of these results should cause us to run for the hills when we see a deep fryer. Chances are good that the results of these case-control studies are tracking some other exposure. Like kang use, coal stoves, wood stoves, overconsumption, etc. Especially since two studies showed an increased risk of boiling food, with one finding being significant and the other being non-significant.
There is also a [meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24925369/) investigating the relationship between PUFA and lung cancer, which showed a linear, non-significant decrease in risk with higher intakes.
![[Pasted image 20220209180218.png]]
However, many of the included risk ratios were specific to fish. If we limit the risk ratios to just those that investigated total PUFA, we see no significant association with lung cancer risk.
![[PUFAlungcancer.png]]
### Shitty Replication Tho
<div style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;">
Nutritional Epidemiology Claims:
</div>
> 1) Findings in nutritional epidemiology tend not to replicate, because the data is terrible quality.
<div style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;">
Response:
</div>
To support this claim, Tucker cites a paper by [Young and Karr (2011)](https://rss.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2011.00506.x) as evidence that nutritional epidemiology and RCTs agree 0% of the time. However, if you read it, they investigated "claims of causation", rather than comparing effect sizes and directionality head to head. This is probably the least rigorous way to investigate this.
Rather, there have been two actual systematic investigations into rates of concordance between nutritional epidemiology and randomized controlled trials. In both analyses, actual treatment effects from RCTs were compared to observed associations in nutritional epidemiology.
One compared [34 associations](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23700648/) that had matched RCT data. The other compared [97 diet-disease outcome pairs](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34526355/), which included over 950 trials and over 750 cohort studies for their comparison analysis. Overall their findings were that nutritional epidemiology agrees with RCT data between 65-67% of the time.
These are more robust, rigorous analyses than the one that Tucker cited, and therefore they supersede Tucker's reference. Not only that but we should have more confidence in them by virtue of the fact that their findings replicated well despite their study pools differing drastically.
Here is how this position can be defended syllogistically:
### Epi Bad Tho
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1)</b></font> If comparing effect sizes to effect sizes is more apples-to-apples than comparing expert opinions to effect sizes, and 950 is a larger sample size than either 12 or 52, and 34 is a larger number of exposures than 11, then the Schwingshackl paper has better methods and a larger sample size than the Young and Karr paper.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>((P∧Q∧R)→S)</b>
<br />
<b>P2)</b></font> Comparing effect sizes to effect sizes is more apples-to-apples than comparing expert opinions to effect sizes.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(P)</b>
<br />
<b>P3)</b></font> 950 is a larger sample size than either 12 or 52.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(Q)</b>
<br />
<b>P4)</b></font> 97 is a larger number of exposures than 11.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(R)</b>
<br />
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, the Schwingshackl paper has better methods and a larger sample size than the Young and Karr paper.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∴S)</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#((P~1Q~1R)~5S),(P),(Q),(R)|=(S))
As a funny aside, even if he was correct it would make nutrition epidemiology extremely robust. Because a truly 0% replication rate would mean that all you would have to do is do the opposite of whatever nutritional epidemiology said in order to get the right answer.
If Tucker decides to argue against epidemiology in favour of interventional research on the basis of confounding variables in epidemiology, we can run these arguments on him to check his consistency. If he accepts the premises for both inferences, then he needs to provide interventional evidence to validate every confounder.
### Experimental Evidence Tho
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1)</b></font> If experimental evidence is required to demonstrate causality and confounding is a causal concept, then experimental evidence is required to validate potential confounders.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(P∧Q→R)</b>
<br />
<b>P2)</b></font> Experimental evidence is required to demonstrate causality.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(P)</b>
<br />
<b>P3)</b></font> Confounding is a causal concept.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(Q)</b>
<br />
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, experimental evidence is required to validate potential confounders.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∴R)</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(P~1Q~5R),(P),(Q)|=(R))
Tucker has also taken the position that linoleic acid might be the only dietary component that matters for chronic disease outcomes.
> Compared to what? I don't think it matters, even for TFA. That's a huge potential side-issue, so maybe we should just leave that for another time. It's highly confounded, as most TFA came along w/ LA, so hard to discern... But I feel the data is there, so we can include.
This position can be syllogized as such:
### Confounding Tho
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1)</b></font> If the dietary component is confounding, then the dietary component is linoleic acid.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(P→Q)</b>
<br />
<b>P2)</b></font> The dietary component is not linoleic acid.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(¬Q)</b>
<br />
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, the dietary component is not confounding.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∴¬P)</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(P~5Q),(~3Q)|=(~3P))
### Liver Lat Tho
<div style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;">
Fatty Liver Claims:
</div>
> 1) Linoleic acid containing intravenous lipid emulsions cause liver failure or liver dysfunction in children on total parenteral nutrition.
<div style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;">
Response:
</div>
For the first point, within this body of literature the primary hypothesis that has been put forth to explain the cholestasis observed with soybean oil based lipid emulsions [implicates phytosterols](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9437703/) as the primary driver.
When you match the infusion rate of phytosterol-containing fish oil based IVLEs to that of the highest allowable levels of Intralipid, such that the stigmasterol infusion rate is matched, you see [the pathology in mice](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24107776/). Meaning that this is likely not a linoleic acid effect, but rather a phytosterol effect.
> 2) Linoleic acid induces non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.
As for the second point, Tucker prefers to cite two studies. In the [first study](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32652034/) youths were placed on a diet with a "low" n-6/n-3 ratio. However, exploring their supplementary materials reveals that n-6 wasn't modified, with n-3 was increased instead.
![[Pasted image 20220209154104.png]]
![[Pasted image 20220209154326.png]]
In the [second study](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26408952/), the intervention was uncontrolled and subjects actually lost enough weight that they went from being clinically obese to clinically overweight. The independent effect of linoleic acid is not divulged here.
In fact, we have trials directly testing the effects of altering dietary fatty acid composition on liver fat accumulation. In the context of [overfeeding](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24550191/), linoleic acid resists liver fat accumulation. In the context of [eucaloric feeding](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22492369/), linoleic acid reduces liver fat.
### Endocannabinoids Tho
<div style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;">
Obesity Claims:
</div>
> 1) Linoleic acid induces obesity through endocannabinoid activation in the brain, mediated by changes in 2-arachidonoylglycerol.
<div style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;">
Response:
</div>
For the first point, according to the secondary endpoint analysis done by [Hooper et al. 2020](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32428300/) with the Cochrane Collaboration, Olso Diet-Heart saw a 2.5kg reduction in body weight during their study period, whereas the Medical Research Council saw no change in body weight as well.
Additionally, the LA Veterans trial did not observe significant differences in body weight by eight years of 40g/day of linoleic acid in the experimental group. The Sydney Diet Heart Study also saw reductions in body weight on a similarly high linoleic acid diet.
The acute effects of high linoleic acid diets have [also been investigated multiple times](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20492735/). In aggregate, there is no significant effect of varying meal fatty acid composition on postprandial satiety, appetite, or energy intake.
> 2) Rimonabant provides an open-and-shut case for the obesogenic effect of linoleic acid in humans, because it blocks the effects of 2-AG on the endocannabinoid system.
To the second point, while it is true that this drug does appear to reduce energy intake and result in weight loss that is equal to just over a [quarter-pound per week](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17054276/), CB-antagonists such as Rimonabant are not specifically targeting LA metabolism. All this research tells us is that the endocannabinoid system is involved with the regulation of body weight in humans, but it does not tell us what independent contribution of vegetable oil.
Why doesn't Tucker also hold this belief for oleic acid increasing weight via oleamide? Oleamide is an endocannabinoid that is synthesized in the human body from oleic acid (similarly to how 2-AG is synthesized from arachidonic acid), and is the primary fatty acid found in olive oil. Rodents dosed with oleamide tend to [become lethargic](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14615880/) and [increase their energy intake](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15193744/). It is also true that experimental diets high in oleic acid have been shown to [induce obesity in rodents](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9627373/). Lastly, olive oil consumption has [skyrocketed in the United States since 1983](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26524031_Olive_and_olive_pomace_oil_packing_and_marketing). This is around the same time that the American obesity epidemic [first began](https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-statistics/overweight-obesity). Interestingly, because oleamide is [also a cannabinoid receptor-1 agonist](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14707029/) and inhibits the action of both oleamide and 2-AG, the implications of Rimonabant apply equally to this hypothesis as they do to the hypothesis that implicates linoleic acid in obesity.
If the same sort of mechanistic hypothesis can be formed using evidence that is largely equal in quality to the evidence that was used to build the case against dietary linoleic acid, why doesn't Tucker believe that olive oil can cause obesity?
Given his claims about the endocannabinoid system, we could get him to bite the bullet on olive oil causing obesity. Here's how that could be syllogized:
Finally, for the third point, this observation can be reconciled with the [conventional paradigm of obesity](https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ajcn/nqac031/6522166), which posits that both access to abundant hyperpalatable food and other environmental factors converge to activate certain key systems within the human brain that drive overconsumption. The association is also superseded by experimental evidence showing that high vegetable oil diets don't seem to cause weight gain.
### Obesogenic Olive Oil Reductio
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|:-------------------------------------------:|:-------------------------------------------------------- |
| <font color="CC6600">**C**</font> | elevating CB1 agonists (x) promotes hyperphagia |
| <font color="CC6600">**V**</font> | (y) foods that elevate CB1 agonists promotes weight gain |
| <font color="CC6600">**o**</font> | olive oil |
| <font color="CC6600">**m**</font> | oleamide |
| <font color="CC6600">**s**</font> | seed oils |
| <font color="CC6600">**a**</font> | 2-AG |
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1)</b></font> If elevating CB1 agonists promotes hyperphagia, then foods that elevate CB1 agonists promotes weight gain.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∀x∀y(Hx→Wy))</b>
<br />
<b>P2)</b></font> Elevating oleamide promotes hyperphagia.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(Hm)</b>
<br />
<b>P3)</b></font> Elevating 2-AG promotes hyperphagia.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(Ha)</b>
<br />
<b>P4)</b></font> If seed oils promote weight gain, then olive oil promotes weight gain.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(Ws→Wo)</b>
<br />
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, olive oil promotes weight gain.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∴Wo)</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x~6y(Hx~5Wy)),(Hm),(Ha),(Ws~5Wo)|=(Wo))
## Notes
1. Tucker affirms P2 on his [blog](https://yelling-stop.blogspot.com/2021/11/does-linoleic-acid-induce-obesity.html).
![[Pasted image 20220307113948.png]]
2. Tucker is also pro olive oil.
![[Pasted image 20220307115137.png]]
![[Pasted image 20220307115615.png]]
---
# Hashtags
#debate
#debate_opponents
#clowns
#clownery
#tucker_goodrich

67
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Turning Veganese.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
# Debate 1
## Proposition
>"Killing odd-order predators is incompatible with veganism."
## Semantics
1. Veganism
- an ethical stance against all forms human to non-human animals oppression."
2. Opression
- use and/or abuse and/or exploitation.
## Analysis
1. Is it oppressive to let the murderers kill and eat a woman?
- ""
2. Is it oppressive to let the lions kill and eat a woman?
- ""
3. Is it oppressive to let the lions kill and eat a gazelle?
- ""
### Reductio
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|:-------------------------------------------:|:--------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| <font color="CC6600">**V**</font> | something (x) is vegan |
| <font color="CC6600">**E**</font> | something (x) does not involve human on non-human animal exploitation |
| <font color="CC6600">**P**</font> | the products (x) generated are not vegan |
| <font color="CC6600">**b**</font> | bees pollinating human crops |
| <font color="CC6600">**a**</font> | apples |
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1)</b></font> Something is vegan if, and only if, something does not involve human on non-human animal exploitation.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∀x(Vx↔¬Ex))</b>
<br />
<b>P2)</b></font> Bees pollinating human crops involves human on non-human exploitation.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(Eb)</b>
<br />
<b>P3)</b></font> If bees pollinating human crops is not vegan, then the products generated are not vegan.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(¬Vb→∀x(¬Px))</b>
<br />
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, apples are not vegan.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∴¬Pa)</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Vx~4~3Ex)),(Eb),(~3Vb~5~6x(~3Px))|=(~3Pa))
---
# Hashtags
#debate
#debate_opponents
#vegan

25
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Vssj91.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
# Debate 1
## Proposition
>"odd order predator killing is immoral."
## Semantics
1. Veganism
- a set of duties humans have toward animals, such as preventing their commodification and objectification, and to a lesser degree preventing harm.
## Analysis
1. NTT with respect to preventing animal procreation
- world a: tards hypnotizing tards into sex
- world b: animals fucking other animals
---
# Hashtags
#debate
#debate_opponents
#vegan
#predators

43
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Wilbo.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
## Proposition
>"Beef enhances vitality, pep, intelligence, and drive and vitality, pep, intelligence, and drive are needed in order to invent carbon capture, so beef is essential to solving climate change"
## Argument
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1)</b></font> Vitality, pep, intelligence, and drive are needed in order to invent carbon capture.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(V∧P∧N∧D→C)</b>
<br />
<b>P2)</b></font> Inventing carbon capture is needed to solve climate change.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(C→L)</b>
<br />
<b>P3)</b></font> Beef leads to enhanced vitality, pep, intelligence, and drive.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(B→V∧P∧N∧D)</b>
<br />
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, beef is needed to solve climate change.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∴B→L)</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
## Analysis
1. What's the argument for P3?
---
# Hashtags
#debate
#meat
#debate_opponents

51
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/XDB500.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
## Proposition
>"A food increases blood glucose only if it contains carbs, and a food causes diabetes only if it raises blood glucose."
## Argument
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|:-------------------------------------------:|:----------------------------------------- |
| <font color="CC6600">**R**</font> | food (x) raises blood glucose |
| <font color="CC6600">**C**</font> | food (x) contains carbohydrate |
| <font color="CC6600">**D**</font> | food (x) causes diabetes |
| <font color="CC6600">**m**</font> | meat |
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1)</b></font> A food raises blood glucose if, and only if, it contains carbohydrates.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∀x(Rx↔Cx))</b>
<br />
<b>P2)</b></font> A food causes diabetes if, and only if, it raises blood glucose.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∀x(Dx↔Cx))</b>
<br />
<b>P3)</b></font> Meat does not contain carbohydrates.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(¬Cm)</b>
<br />
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, meat does not raise blood glucose or cause diabetes.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∴¬Dm∨¬Rm)</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
## Analysis
1. How do you explain this? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25351652/
---
# Hashtags
#debate
#debate_opponents
#type_2_diabetes
#carbohydrates

83
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Zoom.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,83 @@
# Debate 1
## Proposition
>"veganism is immoral."
## Argument
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|:-------------------------------------------:|:--------------------------------------------------------- |
| <font color="CC6600">**C**</font> | one has an obligation to convince others of something (x) |
| <font color="CC6600">**M**</font> | something (x) is a moral obligation |
| <font color="CC6600">**O**</font> | it is immoral to convince others of something (x) |
| <font color="CC6600">**I**</font> | something (x) is immoral |
| <font color="CC6600">**v**</font> | veganism |
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1)</b></font> One has an obligation to convince others of something if and only if that something is a moral obligation.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>∀x(Cx↔Mx)</b>
<br />
<b>P2)</b></font> It is immoral to convince others of something if and only if that something is not a moral obligation.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>∀x(Ox↔¬Mx</b>
<br />
<b>P3)</b></font> Veganism is not a moral obligation.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(¬Mv)</b>
<br />
<b>P4)</b></font> If it is immoral to convince others of veganism, then veganism is immoral.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>()</b>
<br />
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, veganism is immoral.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∴Iv)</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
## Reductio
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|:----------------------------------------:|:------------------------------------------ |
| <font color="CC6600">**C**</font> | one has an obligation to convince others of something (x) |
| <font color="CC6600">**M**</font> | something (x) is a moral obligation |
| <font color="CC6600">**b**</font> | abstaining from baby rape |
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1)</b></font> One has an obligation to convince others of something if and only if that something is a moral obligation..
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∀x(Cx↔Mx))</b>
<br />
<b>P2)</b></font> Abstaining from baby rape is a moral obligation..
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(Mb)</b>
<br />
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, one has an obligation to convince others to abstain from baby rape.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∴Cb)</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
---
# Hashtags
#debate
#debate_opponents
#clowns
#clownery

117
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/redwildboi33.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,117 @@
# Debate 3
## Proposition
>"On Nick's definition it is and is not the case that Nick is Intentionally conspiring to cause harm."
## Notes
Conceded he was a gibberish generator
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20230822151303.png]]
# Debate 2
## Proposition
>"Veganism is attacking food security."
## Argument
<div style="text-align: center">
<font color="CC6600">
<b>P1)</b></font> In order to be secure in our existence, we need food.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(A)</b>
<br />
<b>P2)</b></font> There are finite amounts of resources.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(B)</b>
<br />
<b>P3)</b></font> Population expansion is at 67 million (with a 2% multiplier) annually.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(C)</b>
<br />
<b>P4)</b></font> Humans have morphological characteristics that inhibit us from digesting unlockable carbs such as langan and cellulose.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(D)</b>
<br />
<b>P5)</b></font> 70% of the global surface is water.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(E)</b>
<br />
<b>P6)</b></font> There is no structure for monocropping on water bodies.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(F)</b>
<br />
<b>P7)</b></font> There are waste products involved in animal agriculture.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(G)</b>
<br />
<b>P8)</b></font> 86% of waste manufacture products are fed back to livestock.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(H)</b>
<br />
<b>P9)</b></font> The waste products are not fit for human consumption.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(I)</b>
<br />
<b>P10)</b></font> Pigs cecums are longer than human rectums.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(J)</b>
<br />
<b>P11)</b></font> Poultry gizzards can absorb more mineral content than humans.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(K)</b>
<br />
<b>P12)</b></font> The phosphorous that poultry can absorb would kill a human.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(L)</b>
<br />
<b>P13)</b></font> Copper is deadly to sheep.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(M)</b>
<br />
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, veganism is attacking food security.
<br />
<font color="CC6600">
<b>(∴N)</b>
<br />
<br />
</font>
</div>
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(A),(B),(C),(D),(E),(F),(G),(H),(I),(J),(K),(L),(M)|=(N))
# Debate 2
## Proposition
>"The international case studies are conclusive in their findings that dairy maximizes growth potential"
## Analysis
1. same attitude toward the relationship between smoking and longevity?
1. if no, why?
---
# Hashtags
#debate
#debate_opponents
#clowns
#clownery
#environment
#vegan

42
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/sixsrs.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
# Debate 1
## Proposition
> "subjecting seed oils to extreme cooking methods is one of the major issues plaguing people's health."
## Analysis
1. "major issues"
- what proportion of total issues?
1. "people's heath"
- what endpoints?
### Compounds tho
1. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ejlt.201700376
2. https://www.fda.gov.tw/upload/133/content/2013050913435287631.pdf
3. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280786965_Effect_of_Heating_on_the_Characteristics_and_Chemical_of_Selected_Frying_Oils_and_Fats
### Cross-sectional studies tho
1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000291652203444X
### Rodents tho
1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1537189114000536?via%3Dihub
2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8840387/#:~:text=Epididymal%20fat%20weight%20and%20body,robustly%20decreased%20body%20fat%20accumulation
### Inflammation tho
1. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22162245/#:~:text=The%20postprandial%20inflammatory%20response%20after,the%20presence%20of%20phenol%20compounds
### Tsimane tho
1. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/oby.22556
## Notes
Total clownery
---
# Hashtags
#debate
#debate_opponents