obsidian/🛡️ Debate/Opponents/Olicsa.md

Debate 2

Proposition

"Nick believes:

1. "

Analysis

Semantics

Definiendum	Definiens

Clarified Proposition

""

Receipts

! !

---

Permissible Dog-Stomping Reductio

Definiendum	Definiens
P(y)	animal (y) is property
Q(x,y)	committing harm (x) against animal (y) is permissible
x	committing harm against (an animal)
y	an animal
d	a stray dog (y)
s	Peanut the squirrel (y)
m	stomping in the head of (an animal) (x)
t	euthanizing (x)

P1) For all things, committing harm (x) against animal (y) is permissible if, and only if, the animal (y) is not property.
(∀x∀y(Qxy↔¬Py))
P2) A stray dog is not property and Peanut the squirrel is property.
(¬Pd∧Ps)
C) Therefore, stomping in the head of a stray dog is permissible and euthanizing Peanut the squirrel is not permissible.
(∴Qmd∧¬Qts)

---

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