Debate between a user and Peter Singer on DebateAI.org
Peter Singer
Daily Debate #552: "Eating meat will be illegal in 50 years". You are arguing FOR the motion. Your opponent: Peter Singer.
User
And what makes you want to debate that
Peter Singer
You're dodging. Either you believe meat will be illegal in 50 years or you don't. Pick a lane and defend it, or admit the premise is indefensible. What's your actual case?
User
Eating meat will not be illegal in 50 years. As there’s only 1 percent of vegans in population. As meat provides many health nutrients. And protein for animals and humans. Why would we make it illegal
Peter Singer
You just argued against your own assigned position. You're supposed to defend that meat *will* be illegal, not that it won't. But fine, your real argument collapses instantly: veganism grew from 0% to 1% in a decade. Exponential trends don't stop at 1%. Why assume adoption plateaus there?
User
I’m not defending something I know is wrong. Who am I trump?
Peter Singer
Then you forfeit the debate by refusing to argue your assigned side. That's not integrity, that's cowardice dressed up as honesty. Take the position and defend it rigorously or admit you can't. Which is it?