obsidian/🛡️ Debate/Opponents/Brian Kateman.md

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

Definiendum	Definiens
V	it is possible for (x) one to be vegan
S	it is possible for (x) one's (y) actions to cause animal suffering absence of survival necessity
h	human
e	existence

P1) 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.
(∀x∀y(◇Vx↔◇¬Sxy))
P2) Human existence necessitates animal suffering in the absence of survival necessity.
(▢She)
C) Therefore, it is impossible for humans to be vegan.
(∴¬◇Vh)

Proof Tree

---

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:

! ! ! !

---

Hashtags

#debate #debate_opponents #clowns #clownery #vegan #cropdeaths