Vegan women who swallow their sires' semen are hypocrites
However, most women these days aren't so prudish and are quite happy to quaff their boyfriends' penile coloda.
That said, some of these gunk-guzzling girls are vegans for ethical reasons and are, therefore, sworn to abstain from consuming animal products.
This is an outrage because humans are a species of animal and sperm is produced by humans, so it is totally hypocritical of vegan women to swallow their sires' semen.
Veganismis the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet, as well as following an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of sentient animals
product - something produced; especially : commodity 1 (2) : something (as a service) that is marketed or sold as a commodity
The Cummunist Manifesto
“Let the guzzling classes tremble at a Cummunist revolution. The harlotarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working men of all countries, unite!”
–Karl “Big Gulp” Marx
The vegan ethos is motivated by the recognition that neither man nor beast may be made an object to be sucked dry by the ruling classes. Vegans see ethical worth in all sentient beings and so refuse to partake in the reification of animals. Meat and leather represent the coercive transformation of a sentient being into an object to be sold and consumed.
Swallowing semen is consensual act- the sperm is willingly expelled from the body with joy and vigor. Barring fringe cases of prostitution, the vegan is not making the sperm donor an object to be bought and sold; the vegan is not reducing the sentient spewer to a piece of meat. Simply put, spunk ain’t a commodity.
Oral sex and the eager lapping that follows is not only wholly within the ethical bounds of veganism, it solves the inequalities vegans object to. In his semenal work, Marx noted:
“In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another is put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.”
Swallowing is an act which bridges the divide between classes. It removes antagonism as the donor appreciates the moral fortitude of the vegan for finishing the job through to the end.
Firstly, I dispute my opponent's claim that love custard is not a commodity: when a man spills his kids into his girlfriend's mouth the lady enjoys the experience just as much as he does . Obviously she doesn't pay him for this service but, nevertheless, it has value for her, and as such, gentlemen's sauce should be considered a commodity. To underline this point, although girls don't pay for sperm, fertility clinics certainly do.
My opponent then referred to Marx's "semenal work". If I hadn't realised this misspelling was an intentional (and very clever) pun I could have pointed out that the correct spelling is "seminal", but I wouldn't do that because I think engaging in seminal sementics is tedious.
Moving on to my opponent's argument, whilst it is true that the woman's willingness to gobble her boy off and then "finish the job" by swallowing his muck will "remove antagonism" in their relationship, it nonetheless remains the case that the girl receives sustenance from the semen, which, like most animal products, is very high in protein. 
A vegan woman's decision not to eat meat for ethical reasons is wholly consistent with socialism but, in developed countries, being a vegetarian is a matter of choice, not a necessity. So, by choosing to swallow her sire's semen vegan women are deliberately breaking their vow not to consume animal products and are, therefore, hypocrites.
 I expect.
Pro claims sperm is a commodity because of the value a lady (or man or transgender or animorph) places on it. But a thing having value does not make it a commodity. I appreciate the sun, moon, stairs, and rain  but these things are not commodities – commodities are things which can be bought and sold and owned.
Pro has a point that fertility clinics buy sperm- If a vegan went to a clinic, bought a vial of sperm, and threw it back like a vodka shot it may be hypocritical. Yet even in this case the man freely gave this sample- unlike the forceful coercion of animals. But the resolution is about swallowing after oral sex, not clinics- a situation where no commercial transaction occurs.
Pro rightfully points out that swallowing semen is beneficial to women’s health due to its high protein content, it also reduces risk of breast cancer . But vegans object to the ethical content of eating animal products, not the protein content.
Pro misses the jizt of my argument. An analogy: suppose I say “I am ethically opposed to slapping babies and so will not slap babies.” Then one day I see a baby choking on… semolina pasta. I slap the baby on the back, dislodging the food. No one would accuse me of being a hypocrite because I did not violate the ethical spirit of my pledge. In the same way, cum guzzling does not violate the ethical spirit of veganism.
Finally, extend my argument that semen drinking solves class disparity- as Pro concedes. This means that when swallowing her sire’s sperm, a vegan is solving the class inequality she objects to by rejecting the social inequality between man and beast. Swallowing is an act that helps bridge that inequality.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|