I did a quick read and honestly I don't understand why did you forfeit it. IMO, you're right. I was expecting a proof that truth is objective but I didn't find it.
That's true in the present moment. Afaik "should" also allows for future. For instance you choose to use *today* in
"should bring your pet alligator to school today". It seems to me that "students should bring their pet alligator to school" is less false, you have room to take appropriated measures and change the rules.
IMO veganism is not only one diet, it's a set of diets. Definitely there is a vegan diet that is not optimal, hence the resolution is trivially true. The question to me is: "is there a vegan diet as optimal as a non-vegan one?"
I did a quick read and honestly I don't understand why did you forfeit it. IMO, you're right. I was expecting a proof that truth is objective but I didn't find it.
That's true in the present moment. Afaik "should" also allows for future. For instance you choose to use *today* in
"should bring your pet alligator to school today". It seems to me that "students should bring their pet alligator to school" is less false, you have room to take appropriated measures and change the rules.
It seems to me that "... should ..." is kind of true. But they seem to be arguing about "... can ..." or "... must ...", at least oromagi .
Also, I'm not sure you can separate the environmental sense from "optimal health" (e.g. covid).
IMO veganism is not only one diet, it's a set of diets. Definitely there is a vegan diet that is not optimal, hence the resolution is trivially true. The question to me is: "is there a vegan diet as optimal as a non-vegan one?"