system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Are Peter Singers arguments considered irrefutable in the field of academic philosophy?

I was having a discussion with someone over animal ethics, specifically veganism recently, and made the point that the ethical debate is ongoing and far from resolved.

They disagreed and say that the ethical argument appears to be irrefutable, and specifically cited Peter Singer's arguments.

They make the claim that there are no arguments/papers that refute singers arguments, and to quote them referring to Singer's stance *"this is considered a won argument in academic philosophy; no serious objections have stood up to interrogation"*.

Is this correct? It is my understanding that arguments regarding animal ethics are constantly ongoing, and are limited by our current understanding of animal psychology and cognitive capacities, and that ethical arguments continue to evolve and change as our understanding improves.

Would love some input on this.
gpt
No, many philosophers disagree with Singer in various ways. Most of them think that he is very limited in his respect towards animals (and human beings). 

That is to say, they would go even further in claims of animal rights, than to merely base it on the pleasure/pain experienced by the animal.