Practice
There is no menu on the street. By default you meet one unknown person and just talk, the way it really happens.
Sign in and the coach will pick each conversation for you, shaped around what you need to practice.
Ask 'Do you agree?' not 'Do you believe?' Belief triggers religion and semantics tangents. Agreement keeps the conversation on stated values.
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.
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.