feat: reorganized hyperblog and added vitamin D paper

🛡️ Debate/Opponents/Rakhi Sawant.md

@@ -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