Most people argue as an impulse and close their minds just to win a debate.

Ask these questions before trying to convince anyone:

  • Selfishness leads individuals to focus primarily on their own benefits, often at the expense of broader societal and environmental considerations. This trait can hinder discussions on topics like veganism, which require considering the well-being of the outside world, including animals and the planet.

    It’s tough to argue effectively with someone selfish unless they see a direct benefit for themselves. Changing their perspective to appreciate the broader impacts of their choices is crucial for a constructive conversation.

  • Holding beliefs based on blind faith without questioning or seeking evidence can lead to rigid, uninformed stances. This is problematic in debates about veganism, which benefits from understanding scientific facts and ethical reasoning.

    Engaging in meaningful dialogue with someone who does not value evidence or reason is often fruitless. Promoting critical thinking and openness to new information is essential for productive discussions.

“We are all against animal cruelty and putting animals in our mouths is cruel. We all need the backstory to awaken from our preconceived norms and values.”

Arguments from meat eaters

  • While it's true that humans have consumed meat historically, modern dietary science allows us to meet all nutritional needs, including proteins and vitamins, from plant-based sources. Concerns like vitamin B12 can be addressed through supplements, which are often used in animal feed anyway, making supplementation a common practice regardless of diet​.

  • The appeal of taste does not necessarily justify the ethical and health implications of consuming animal products. Plant-based diets can be delicious and diverse, and the taste for meat and dairy often diminishes once a person adapts to a vegan diet.

  • Vegan diets can provide all necessary nutrients for health. They are often higher in certain beneficial nutrients like dietary fiber and lower in cholesterol and saturated fats, reducing the risk of heart disease. The key is a well-planned diet that includes a variety of fruits, vegetables, legumes, and fortified foods.

  • While cultural traditions often include meat, societies evolve, and food practices can adapt without losing cultural identity. Economically, transitioning towards more sustainable food systems like plant-based diets can also create new jobs and industries focused on sustainable practices​.

  • Unlike obligate carnivores like lions, humans can thrive on a plant-based diet. Ethically, humans have the capacity to make choices based on moral considerations, which include minimizing harm to other sentient beings. We have the privilege and responsibility to choose diets that do not contribute to unnecessary suffering.

  • Scientific consensus indicates that plants do not feel pain because they lack a nervous system, brain, and other structures necessary to process sensations. The argument is often used to equate the eating of plants with animals, but from a biological and ethical standpoint, they are fundamentally different​.

  • Farm animals are bred specifically to meet consumer demand. If fewer people consume animal products, fewer animals will be bred. This managed approach in breeding can effectively prevent overpopulation as the transition to plant-based diets encourages more sustainable agricultural practices. Thus, natural ecosystems and controlled breeding can maintain balance without the need for mass consumption of animal products.

The magic word is “why” lead people to their own beliefs by asking them why? and then correct them and provide the true story behind their misconceptions. Remember most of us used to be in their place now, lead your friends and family to peace by peace.

"How to Argue with Meat Eaters"

by Ed Winters is a strategic guide aimed at equipping vegans with effective arguments and counterarguments in discussions about veganism. The book covers a range of topics from ethical considerations, environmental impact, and health benefits of a vegan diet, to common misconceptions and challenges faced by vegans. Winters provides insights on how to engage in respectful and persuasive conversations with meat eaters, aiming to encourage understanding and possibly influence dietary changes.

Common fallacies in arguments

Ad Hominem (Attack the Person)

In discussions about veganism, some individuals resort to attacking the person making the argument rather than addressing the argument itself. For example, they might call vegans "extremists" or "hippies" instead of considering the ethical, health, or environmental reasons for their dietary choice. This fallacy distracts from the actual issues and undermines productive dialogue. Instead, focus on the merits of the argument, not the character of the person presenting it.

Appeal to Tradition (Norms Can Be Wrong)

Many people argue that eating meat is justified because it has been a tradition for centuries. This appeal to tradition assumes that longstanding practices are inherently right or necessary. However, norms can and do evolve, and just because something has been done for a long time doesn't mean it's the best choice. Challenging outdated practices is essential for progress, and this includes re-evaluating dietary habits.

Appeal to Ignorance (Encourage Ignorance)

Some argue that because there is no definitive proof that a vegan diet is superior in every way, it's safer to stick with eating meat. This fallacy relies on the absence of evidence as proof of the opposite claim. Scientific research continually evolves, and the lack of absolute proof doesn't invalidate the substantial evidence supporting veganism's benefits. Encourage informed decisions based on current evidence rather than fear of the unknown.

Straw Man (Misrepresentation of the Argument)

A common tactic is to misrepresent the vegan argument to make it easier to attack. For example, someone might claim that vegans believe eating one piece of meat will instantly cause harm, which oversimplifies and distorts the argument about cumulative harm and ethical concerns. By addressing a weaker version of the argument, this fallacy avoids engaging with the actual points being made. Ensure that arguments are accurately represented and discussed.

False Dichotomy (Assuming for Escape)

This fallacy presents a situation as having only two extreme options, such as "either eat meat or starve," ignoring other viable alternatives like plant-based diets. This oversimplification forces a false choice and ignores the complexity of dietary options available. Recognizing the spectrum of choices allows for more nuanced and informed discussions about diet and ethics.

Appeal to Authority (Blind Faith)

Some defend meat consumption by citing authorities or experts who support their view, without critically evaluating the evidence or considering other expert opinions. Blindly following authority without question stifles critical thinking and ignores the wealth of scientific research supporting veganism. It’s crucial to assess the credibility and biases of sources, and to consider the broader consensus within the scientific community.