obsidian/🛡️ Debate/Opponents/Nurse Eric.md

Debate 5

Proposition

it is permissible to expose Eric's views by surreptitiously recording private conversations wherein he attempts to justify animal agriculture.

Definiendum	Definiens
H	one (x) engages in apologia for a holocaust of the innocent (y)
S	it is permissible to expose one's (x) grotesque views by surreptitiously recording private conversations wherein they attempt to justify said holocaust (y)
e	Eric
a	animal agriculture

P1) 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.
(∀x∀y(Hxy→Sxy))
P2) Eric engages in apologia for animal agriculture.
(Hea)
C) Therefore, it is permissible to expose Eric's views by surreptitiously recording private conversations wherein he attempts to justify animal agriculture.
(∴Sea)

Proof Tree

---

Debate 4?

Notes

Subject has cucked. !

---

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

!

---

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.
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

P1) 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.
(P→Q)
P2) Organism X is the perfect food for organism Y.
(P)
C) Therefore, it would be a privilege for organism X to be eaten by organism Y.
(∴Q)

Proof Tree

Reductio

Definiendum	Definiens
P	organism X (x) is the perfect food for organism Y (y)
Q	it would be a privilege for organism X (x) to be eaten by organism Y (y)
h	humans
l	lions

P1) 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.
(∀x∀y(Pxy→Qxy))
P2) Humans are the perfect food for lions.
(Phl)
C) Therefore, it would be a privilege for humans to be eaten by lions..
(∴Qhl)

Proof Tree

---

Lifestyle Modification Tho

P1) If the intervention is health promoting, then the intervention is a lifestyle modification intervention.
(P→Q)
P2) The intervention is not a lifestyle modification intervention.
(P)
C) Therefore, the intervention is not health promoting.
(∴Q)

Proof Tree

Reductio

Definiendum	Definiens
****	the intervention (x) is health promoting
****	the intervention (x) is a lifestyle modification intervention
****	TPN

P1) If the intervention is health promoting, then the intervention is a lifestyle modification intervention.
(∀x(Px→Qx))
P2) TPN is not a lifestyle modification intervention.
(¬Qt)
C) Therefore, TPN is not health promoting.
(∴¬Pt)

Proof Tree

---

Expensive Tissue Hypothesis Tho

Definiendum	Definiens
E	the Expensive Tissue Hypothesis is true
H	food (x) provides more bioavailable energy than food (y)
M	then food (x) is preferable to food (y) with respect to mental health
m	meat
g	grains

P1) 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.
(∀x∀y(E∧Hxy→Mxy))
P2) The Expensive Tissue Hypothesis is true.
(E)
P3) Meat provides more bioavailable energy than grains.
(Hmg)
C) Therefore, meat is preferable to grains with respect to mental health.
(∴Mmg)

Proof Tree

Reductio

Definiendum	Definiens
E	the Expensive Tissue Hypothesis is true
H	food (x) provides more bioavailable energy than food (y)
M	then food (x) is preferable to food (y) with respect to mental health
s	seed oils
m	meat

P1) 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.
(∀x∀y(E∧Hxy→Mxy))
P2) The Expensive Tissue Hypothesis is true.
(E)
P3) Seed oils provides more bioavailable energy than meat.
(Hsm)
C) Therefore, seed oils are preferable to meat with respect to mental health.
(∴Msm)

Proof Tree

---

Fostered Evolution Tho

P1) 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.
(∀x∀y(Dx→Sxy))

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

Definiendum	Definiens
R	A species has rights
S	a species is sapient
h	homo sapiens
b	bos taurus

P1) A species has rights if, and only if, a species is sapient.
(∀x(Rx↔Sx))
P2) Homo sapiens sapiens are sapient.
(Sh)
P3) Bos taurus are not sapient.
(¬Sb)
C) Therefore, Homo sapiens sapiens have rights and Bos taurus do not have rights.
(∴Rh∧¬Rb)

Proof Tree

Reductio

Definiendum	Definiens
R	A species has rights
S	a species is sapient
m	severely mentally handicapped people

P1) A species has rights if, and only if, a species is sapient.
(∀x(Rx↔Sx))
P2) Severely mentally handicapped people are sapient.
(¬Sm)
C) Therefore, Severely mentally handicapped people do not have rights.
(∴¬Rm)

Proof Tree

Reference: !

---

Vegans Are Sophists Tho

Definiendum	Definiens
****	one (x) debates a moral topic (y)
****	one (x) does not engage in realizing their position on the moral topic (y) to the greatest degree practicable
****	one (x) is committed to sophistry
****	vegans
****	animal agriculture

P1) 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.
(∀x∀y(Dxy∧¬Rxy→Sx))
P2) Vegans debate the ethics of animal agriculture.
(Dva)
P3) Vegans does not engage in realizing their position on the ethics of animal agriculture to the greatest degree practicable.
(¬Rva)
C) Therefore, Vegans are committed to sophistry.
(∴Sv)

Proof Tree

Reductio

Definiendum	Definiens
****	one (x) debates a moral topic (y)
****	one (x) does not engage in realizing their position on the moral topic (y) to the greatest degree practicable
****	one (x) is committed to sophistry
****	Eric
****	regenerative agriculture

P1) 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.
(∀x∀y(Dxy∧¬Rxy→Sx))
P2) Eric debates the ethics of regenerative agriculture .
(Der)
P3) Eric does not engage in realizing his position on the ethics of regenerative agriculture to the greatest degree practicable.
(¬Rer)
C) Therefore, Eric is committed to sophistry.
(∴Se)

Proof Tree

---

Dog Molestation Reductio

Definiendum	Definiens
M	the animal (x) can understand freedom, life, and death
F	it is OK to sexually molest animal (x)
g	dogs
o	cows

P1) It is not OK to sexually molest an animal if and only if the animal understands freedom, life, and death.
(∀x(¬Mx↔Fx))
P2) Dogs do not understand freedom, life, and death.
(¬Fg)
P3) Cows do not understand freedom, life, and death.
(¬Fo)
P4) If it is OK to sexually molest cows, then it is OK to sexually molest dogs.
(Mo→Mg)
C) Therefore, it is OK to sexually molest dogs.
(∴Mg)

Proof Tree

---

Hashtags

#debate #debate_opponents #clowns #clownery #vegan #agriculture #animal_agriculture