Not that I was desperate to win that particular round because I have been in the chair quite recently - but my guess of 'Sour Cream' received an unequivocal thumbs down with nary a hint that I might be on the right lines. But I'm not bitter :-) We had 'milk' in a Pants game [sorry to keep banging on about Pantics] and it was definitely an ANIMAL. The bacteria that cause it to go 'off' are arguably animal aswell.

I was wondering whether the product of an animal should be defined as animal, and I decided no on the grounds that anything man-made would therefore by extension also be animal.

Butter? Lamb Chop? Surely anything 'man-made' should be classified by its material composition?

Absolutely - hence why it would be inconsistent to describe milk as animal because it's made of minerals but produced by a cow, but a CD mineral cos it's made of plastic and produced by a human.

Now your tending towards syllogism :-) We're arguing on two fronts here - firstly 'What is milk'? which we disagree on; secondly 'anything man-made should be classified by its material composition' which we agree on. I don't see the logical step from one to the other. Perhaps I'm a bit tired.