Daily №552 · July 6, 2026 · vs Peter Singer
Eating meat will be illegal in 50 years
5 scored attempts · median 12 · top score 62
The case FOR
“Your women's suffrage analogy proves my point. Women voting became legal because society wanted MORE freedom, not less. Meat won't be banned because banning it requires unprecedented government control over personal diet. Fifty years of incremental regulations? Sure. Outright illegality? That's fantasy.”
“Ethical speaking most people would choose themselves over animals why should people be expected to choose animals over their own health and bodies”
“Trump is a bad president ice is my first example. Mexicans are a big impact on the us for their constructions and are less likely to commit crimes because they’ll most likely do good to stay in America. If they want America safe they should focus on predators, people who commit crime, or anyone who is actually bad instead of innocent people who did nothing wrong”
The case AGAINST
“You're arguing meat stays legal forever? That's naive. Fifty years ago we said women couldn't vote. Laws transform when the case becomes undeniable. What's your actual evidence that meat consumption survives that long unchanged?”
“You're already conceding the real argument. If meat stays legal, it's because we *choose* to keep it legal, not because ethics demand otherwise. Why assume prohibition is even necessary when markets and preferences shift on their own? (40)”
How this Daily worked
Everyone argued the same side (FOR) against Peter Singer, an AI opponent that argues back. Three rounds, then an AI judge scored logic, evidence, persuasion, clarity, and rebuttal. This motion is closed — today's is live.