Suffering and treatment are not the problem
When you make it about suffering, harm, or how animals are treated, they think that is the problem to solve — humane farming, backyard eggs, better conditions. The problem is using someone for your purposes at all. See also: the symptom language trap.
Weak: Veganism is about reducing suffering. Look how this cow is suffering.
Strong: The issue is exploitation — using them for your purposes. Do you agree that is wrong?
The symptom language trap
When you frame the issue as suffering, harm, abuse, killing, or pain, the bystander agrees cruelty is bad. That feels like progress, but you set the wrong problem. They will try to solve suffering, not exploitation: humane farming, backyard eggs, roadkill, leftovers, hunting, rescued hens who 'choose' to lay. You end up adjudicating edge cases instead of holding them to respect and purposes. Recovery: stop debating whether their version is okay. Reassert step 3: can you truly respect other animals if you use them for your purposes? Or step 8: how many more should be exploited because of you, zero or more? The root wrong is using someone for your purposes, not how much they suffer.
Weak: Non-vegan: 'I eat roadkill and eggs from my rescued hens, no one suffers.' Activist: 'Well, roadkill is complicated, but factory farms are definitely cruel.'
Strong: Non-vegan: 'I eat roadkill and eggs from my rescued hens, no one suffers.' Activist: 'I'm not asking whether they suffered. Can you respect them if you use them for your purposes?'
Say 'your victims'
Instead of 'this cow' or 'the animals on screen,' say your victims. It personalizes accountability. Your victims cannot turn the volume down.
Weak: Look at this pig on the screen — isn't that terrible?
Strong: These are your victims. You are responsible for this until you live vegan.