Eating meat will be illegal in 50 years

Daily Debate #552: "Eating meat will be illegal in 50 years". You are arguing FOR the motion. Your opponent: Peter Singer.

Regardles of if its the right or left being extremist has only cost humanity there is no side that can be extremist and ngenuinely work for all people

You're arguing against extremism itself, not for meat bans. But extremism isn't the problem—conviction is. Every major moral progress came from people others called extreme: abolitionists, suffragettes, civil rights activists. Compromise with injustice just means slower injustice. Why should we moderate on what matters?

You're conflating moral clarity with destructive methods. Abolitionists won through courts and Congress, not by burning down opposition. Suffragettes got the vote when they pivoted from violence to politics. Civil rights succeeded because King chose nonviolence over extremism. Your logic justifies anything—terrorism, genocide—if you're "convicted" enough. Progress requires people you disagree with to actually listen. Extremism just makes them dig in harder. That's not justice delayed, that's justice defeated.

You're right that methods matter—but you're wrong about what extremism means. MLK wasn't moderate; he was radical. He demanded the impossible, accepted nothing less, and made moderates choose sides. They called him extreme. The difference isn't passion—it's whether you're willing to negotiate on fundamentals. You can't compromise on human dignity. That's not rigidity, that's clarity. So tell me: what's the actual moral line where conviction becomes unjustifiable? Because every oppressor draws it exactly where it protects their interests.