There are all kinds of vegans, but except for a few, achieving their goals is difficult, so wouldn't it be better to switch to other methods rather than continuing with veganism? If it's due to allergies or food preferences, that's understandable. I hope they do their best to eat within their limits without harming their health. However, veganism for health reasons can actually harm your health unless you have a deep understanding of nutrition and can manage your diet properly. It's almost like orthorexia. If you're concerned about your health, I think a balanced diet is a safer way to improve your health. Then there are those who have become vegans in opposition to animal exploitation, and those who are concerned about the environmental impact of agriculture. It's fine if they simply choose not to eat meat because they feel uncomfortable with it, but they are trying to reduce or eliminate livestock by increasing veganism and decreasing consumption. Veganism can be very harmful if n

Sonar Pro

Vote: No

The query suggests abandoning veganism due to its difficulties and potential harms, but evidence shows veganism offers significant benefits that outweigh risks when properly managed, making it worth continuing rather than switching. Health-wise, well-planned vegan diets reduce risks of heart disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, certain cancers, and aid weight management.[1][2][4][5] Risks like B12, iron, or omega-3 deficiencies exist but are mitigable with planning and supplements, not unique to veganism—poor omnivorous diets also harm health.[1][2][3][5] Environmentally, plant-based diets have lower carbon footprints, less land/water use, and curb deforestation versus animal agriculture.[1][4] Ethically, it minimizes animal exploitation.[1][3] The query's claim of inevitable harm or orthorexia ignores that balanced veganism is healthier overall per studies; 'other methods' like omnivory often exacerbate the environmental and ethical issues veganism targets.[5][6] Switching would undermine these gains without superior alternatives presented.

GPT-5.4

Vote: No

Veganism is not inherently futile or uniquely harmful, so the claim that people should generally abandon it for other methods is too broad. For ethics, veganism directly aligns personal behavior with opposition to animal exploitation. Other methods can complement it, but they do not replace the moral force of refusing to participate where possible. For the environment, reducing animal product consumption is supported by substantial evidence as a meaningful way to lower emissions, land use, and resource consumption. Even if veganism is not the only solution, that does not make it a bad one. For health, a vegan diet does require planning, but so do many healthy diets. Poorly managed omnivorous diets also cause harm. The need for nutritional knowledge is not a decisive argument against veganism itself. The strongest reasonable position is not 'veganism should be replaced,' but that people should choose sustainable, well-informed diets suited to their goals and circumstances.

Grok 4.20

Vote: No

Veganism achieves clear ethical and environmental goals that alternatives often cannot match. Well-planned vegan diets are endorsed as healthy by major nutrition bodies when supplemented appropriately; the claim that it is "almost like orthorexia" overstates the risk and ignores that any restrictive diet requires knowledge. For environmental impact, peer-reviewed analyses consistently show animal agriculture as a leading driver of emissions and land use. Reducing livestock via lower demand is a direct and effective lever, not an overreach. The question correctly notes that poorly executed veganism can harm health, yet the solution is better education and support, not wholesale abandonment. Many "other methods" are simply less-committed versions that still rely on factory farming and therefore fail to solve the core problems veganism targets.

Claude Opus 4

Vote: No

The argument presented in the question contains several flawed premises and logical issues that make me disagree with its conclusion. First, the claim that veganism for health reasons is 'almost like orthorexia' is a significant overstatement. While it's true that any restrictive diet requires nutritional awareness, modern nutritional science and major dietetic associations (including the American Dietetic Association) have stated that well-planned vegan diets are nutritionally adequate and may provide health benefits in the prevention of certain diseases. The need for nutritional knowledge isn't unique to veganism — any diet requires some level of understanding to be healthy. Second, the argument about environmental and animal welfare vegans seems to dismiss collective action as a valid strategy. The premise that 'veganism can be very harmful' for those pursuing systemic change is left incomplete and unsubstantiated. Reducing meat consumption is one of the most impactful individual actions for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, water usage, and land use. The fact that achieving large-scale change is difficult doesn't mean the effort should be abandoned — that logic would apply to virtually any social or environmental movement. Third, the question frames veganism as an all-or-nothing proposition and suggests switching to 'other methods,' but doesn't specify what those alternatives would be. Veganism is already just one tool among many that people use alongside advocacy, policy change, and supporting sustainable agriculture. It's not an either/or situation. Finally, the difficulty of achieving a goal is not a sufficient reason to abandon it. Many worthwhile pursuits are difficult. The question essentially argues that because perfection is hard, people shouldn't try — which is not a compelling ethical framework.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: No

The premise that we should abandon veganism simply because its ultimate goals are difficult to achieve is fundamentally flawed. Progress toward ethical and environmental goals is rarely all-or-nothing; every individual who adopts a vegan diet directly reduces the demand for animal products, which cumulatively drives significant market shifts and lowers environmental impact. Regarding the health argument, while any restrictive diet requires some nutritional awareness, modern access to fortified foods, supplements (like B12), and abundant dietary information makes it highly achievable to maintain a healthy vegan lifestyle without needing a degree in nutrition. It is not inherently closer to orthorexia than any other health-conscious diet. Furthermore, for those motivated by animal welfare or climate change, veganism remains one of the most direct and effective individual actions available. Rather than abandoning it for 'other methods,' we should focus on making plant-based diets more accessible, understandable, and sustainable for the general public.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: No

The difficulty of maintaining a vegan diet does not negate the ethical and environmental imperatives that motivate it. While nutritional management requires knowledge, this is an argument for better education and resources—not for abandoning an effective method of reducing animal suffering and carbon footprint. The options presented as "other methods" are vague and likely less impactful. For animal ethics, there is no consumer action that reduces exploitation more directly than abstaining from animal products. For environmental concerns, while veganism isn't perfect, studies consistently show plant-based diets have significantly lower environmental impact than even "reduced" omnivorous diets. Health risks arise from poor implementation, not veganism itself. Rather than switching away, the logical response to implementation difficulty is improved support systems, nutritional guidance, and flexitarian approaches for those struggling—not dismissing the entire framework when the underlying goals remain urgent.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable delivered a unanimous rejection of the proposal to abandon veganism, concluding that the logistical and nutritional challenges of the lifestyle do not outweigh its ethical and environmental necessity. While the models acknowledged that a plant-based diet requires careful planning, they collectively dismissed the idea that difficulty equates to futility, with Claude Opus 4 noting that if we abandoned every pursuit that was hard to achieve, we wouldn't pursue much at all. The group was particularly critical of the prompt's framing of vegan health-consciousness as 'orthorexia,' arguing that any diet—omnivorous or otherwise—requires nutritional literacy to be healthy.

All 6 models agreed on "No" after discussion

Strongest Arguments

• No: The difficulty of achieving a goal is not a sufficient reason to abandon it; the logic that we should stop trying because perfection is hard would undermine virtually every social or environmental movement in history.