Straw Man
Logical fallacyReplacing someone's actual position with a weaker, distorted version, then refuting that instead. The original argument is left untouched.
An everyday example
“You want better cycle lanes? So you want to ban cars altogether.”
The same move in this debate
“Vegans think a chicken's life is worth exactly as much as a child's.”
Where this appears
Assumes the proposal is to release existing herds, when it is to breed progressively fewer animals as demand declines.
Assumes an abrupt, total and simultaneous global switch, which is not the proposal and not how dietary change occurs.
Treats veganism as an absolute prohibition holding in all circumstances, when its standard formulation is explicitly qualified by what is possible and practicable.
Attributes a claim of absolute purity that the standard definition of veganism explicitly declines to make.
Responds to a claim about what is possible and practicable as though it were a demand that everyone everywhere must be vegan immediately.
Assumes an overnight switch with existing herds released en masse, which is neither the proposal nor how consumption changes.
Attributes an absolutist position that the 'as far as is possible and practicable' formulation explicitly does not hold.
When offered as a point against veganism, it rebuts a demand nobody makes: that the entire world switch at once. The actual position concerns what individuals who can change should do now, and the argument leaves that untouched.
Treats vegan food as conventional meals with the meat removed, which is not how the cuisines with the deepest plant-based traditions construct a dish.
The argument targets the idea that you can 'indiscriminately' eat any plants without care, which no dietary guidance proposes. The actual position is a varied diet of normally prepared foods. The speaker concedes that this position avoids the problem, while still presenting the risk as a case against eating mostly plants.
The speaker argues that atherosclerosis is not exclusive to meat-eaters, but the other side had explicitly said they never claimed meat was the only cause. Refuting exclusivity leaves the real claim, that meat raises risk, untouched.
Attributes a universal prohibition binding in all circumstances, which the standard 'possible and practicable' definition does not contain.
Treats the position as a demand that everyone everywhere adopt it immediately, which the standard formulation explicitly declines to make.
The vegan asked whether you ought to do something without causing suffering when you can. The reply treats this as a claim that avoiding suffering is the supreme value, then rejects that larger claim. The actual question, whether unnecessary suffering should be avoided, goes unanswered.
Imagines vegan cooking as elaborate preparation from scratch, when most of it is ordinary weeknight food with different components.