Can open relationships actually work?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Can open relationships actually work?". Your opponent's style: Morpheus

Does eating meat oppose the idea of speciesism?

You're confusing opposition with consistency. Speciesism is the idea that human interests automatically trump animal interests simply because we're human. Eating meat doesn't oppose speciesism, it embodies it. You're asserting that your taste preference matters more than an animal's life, which is the textbook definition of species-based discrimination. The real question isn't whether meat-eating opposes speciesism, it's whether you can justify why your species' convenience overrides another species' survival. Most people can't. They just accept the hierarchy without examining it. So what's your actual justification, or are you just comfortable with the contradiction?

Another question, pertaining to speciesism. Is it speciesism if someone thinks that children's lives matter more that animal life.

No, that's not speciesism, that's just prioritization based on cognitive capacity and reciprocal relationships. Speciesism means discriminating based solely on species membership. But humans have demonstrated higher reasoning, moral agency, and social bonds that create genuine obligations. A child can reciprocate care, develop morally, participate in society in ways animals cannot. You're not choosing the child because it's human, you're choosing it because it possesses capacities that genuinely matter ethically. That's justified hierarchy, not arbitrary discrimination. The real test: would you save a human with severe cognitive disabilities over a dog? Most speciesism critics say yes, which proves they don't actually believe species membership is irrelevant. They just want to pick which hierarchies feel comfortable.