Instigator / Pro
Points: 33

Being vegan is a crime

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 9 votes the winner is ...
oromagi
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Health
Time for argument
Twelve hours
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
1,000
Contender / Con
Points: 63
Description
Being vegan should be a crime in my opinion, as as humans should consume meat. My opponent must prove me wrong
Round 1
Forfeited
Published:
thx, Chris
1000cpa = sorry 4 shortcut, abbr.

RESOLVED: BEING VEGAN IS A CRIME

PRO ffs so CON will define a:

VEGAN as "A person who does not eat, drink or otherwise consume any animal products."

&

CRIME as "A specific act committed in violation of the law."

OBJECTION:  It is not illegal anywhere to refrain from meat.

CONTRADICTION: PRO's resolution contradicts assertion found in the description:

"Being vegan should be a crime in my opinion" 

  • If vegan is a crime then no new law is req'd and PRO's point moot.
  • If vegan should be a crime than PRO concedes it is not now a crime and the resolution disproved.

AMBIGUOUS RESOLUTION:  Is this a fact statement or policy proposal? 
Policy debates require a well-defined plan. Are we outlawing aliens from the star system Vega, for example? 
As is, PRO's resolution is a provably false statement, being vegan is no crime nor ought it be.

BOP: Burden is all PRO's to prove that "being vegan" violates some present, specified legal code.


Round 2
Forfeited
Published:
thx, Chris.

extend arguments to R3
Round 3
Published:
Need for Protein
Meat, fish, eggs and dairy products are common sources of protein for most people. Americans who consume these foods typically get plenty of protein in their daily diets, but vegans need to turn to beans and nuts to get enough. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends 46 grams per day for women 19 and older and 56 grams daily for men. Tofu, beans and nuts are rich sources of protein for vegans. For example, a cup of dry beans has about 16 grams of protein, and a 100-gram serving, which is equal to about 1/2 cup, of extra-firm tofu contains just under 10 grams.

Possible Iron Deficiency
Meat, particularly beef, and shellfish are rich sources of iron for omnivores, but it's important for vegans to consume iron-rich foods as well. Iron deficiency can lead to fatigue and problems with brain function. Females need 18 milligrams of iron daily between the ages of 19 and 50, but the requirement jumps to 27 milligrams for pregnant women.
Published:
RESOLVED: BEING VEGAN IS A CRIME

DROPPED:

  1. OBJECTION: not illegal
  2. CONTRADICTION: is a crime or should be a crime?
  3. AMBIGUITY: policy debate or truism?

By non-objection, PRO accepts definitions & BOP

CONTENTION #1: PROTEIN  

PRO argues that vegans “turn to beans & nuts” to satisfy daily protein requirements.  I think PRO & CON can agree that might  result in less variety for vegans but criminalization seems like an overcorrection.  Perhaps an xtra peanut butter sandwich at lunch would serve public interests better than criminal penalties.

CONTENTION #2:  IRON

Again, while there is some legit concern about iron deficiency, the problem can be easily addressed by inexpensive supplements, avoiding the many social ills of incarceration, etc.  A single Flintstones  vitamin, for example, provides any vegan with 100% of daily iron requirements and offers a fairly simple workaround compared to the public costs of criminalization & enforcement.


Round 4
Forfeited
Published:
thx, Chris.

extend all arguments to R5

Round 5
Forfeited
Published:
thx, Chris


PRO never established whether this debate's  intent was being vegan is a crime or ought to be a crime.  Either way,  PRO never established a benefit for criminalizing veganism in R3 and forfeited all four other rounds.

CON advises voters to rule full forfeit.

Thanks in advance to voters for their kind consideration.
Added:
"Perhaps an xtra peanut butter sandwich at lunch would serve public interests better than criminal penalties."
LOL
#38
Added:
--> @Snoopy, @WolfHunterWhite, @Club, @Ragnar, @Patmos
Thanks, all 4 voting!
Contender
#37
Added:
--> @WolfHunterWhite
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: WolfHunterWhite // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments - 1 point to con for S&G
>Reason for Decision: Being a vegan isn't a crime, only if you are... well... idk shoving your kids into all of this. I have been friends with someone, who thought it was right to force their son into all of this.
Reason for Mod Action> This a full forfeit debate. Voters may not award a balance of points to the forfeiting side
Voter is also ineligible. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts
*******************************************************************
#36
Added:
--> @Dr.Franklin
Thanks for voting!
Contender
#35
Added:
--> @oromagi
Yeah, I completely agree. There are words that we socially should deem unacceptable, but I dont believe in legislating according to our social standards. I think that "retard" can be used correctly to describe the mentally challenged. It seems more respectful than calling them "special".
#34
Added:
--> @bmdrocks21
NTYAB, In that discussion I noted that 'retard,' french for slow, used to be the polite usage compared to more coarse usages: idiot, fool, ass, halfwit, nincompoop, dunce, dolt, ignoramus, cretin, imbecile, dullard, moron, simpleton, clod, etc. I don't think Daffy Duck ever called Elmer Fudd retard because that would have been too polite a word. Now we insist on super-syllabic anti-informational substitutes like "developmentally challenged" that only make the speaker feel better about themselves and offer little enough comfort to the afflicted. I'm gay & deaf myself and so fairly accustomed to adapting the most assaultive invective into amulets of protection. So, I'm okay with retard in most any context.
Contender
#33
Added:
--> @bmdrocks21
" I'm for the most part a free speech absolutist." ( It's hard to resist the punchline: "go fuck yourself" ) I also consider myself fairly radical regarding free speech although I often assert that empathy and civility are essential supports of that radicalism. I find the notion of swear words or inherently forbidden words in a secular forum astonishing.
good topic for debate. When debaters request "no foul language" in desc I always comply but fantasize about running the foulest kiritik I can imagine.
Contender
#32
Added:
--> @oromagi
I would have to look into that thread. I'm for the most part a free speech absolutist.
#31
Added:
--> @bmdrocks21
A subject that is apparently worthy of a remarkable amount of discussion.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2069/the-word-tard
Contender
#30
Added:
--> @oromagi
I see he called club a "retard". Is that a bannable offense?
#29
Added:
--> @bsh1
Was pro banned?
#28
Added:
This is the fourth debate where I've been left wondering for how long my opponent is banned....I brought this uncertainty up last week regarding the need for ban log.
Contender
#27
Added:
--> @bmdrocks21
intel is fuzzy but I think its a ban, temp or perm based on some interaction w/ Club and/or ALT stuff.
Contender
#26
Added:
--> @oromagi
Did he delete his account?
#25
Added:
--> @oromagi
It was SOMEBODY not Somebody.
#24
#9
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Full forfeit
#8
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro FF the majority of the rounds, that's poor conduct!
#7
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro forfeited more than half.
Pro's two arguments, the need for iron and protein, were fully addressed by Con in that vegan alternatives and dietary supplements are available..
#6
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
The description implies to me that "Being vegan is a crime" actually means living a vegan lifestyle can be thought of as criminal activity, not that it is literally treated as a crime at this time, but should be in principle. In lieu of Con's forfeiture Pro completely drops Con's attempt to frame the debate in round 1, but the argument doesn't appear to have integrity as Con is essentially arguing that they entered into the "ambiguous" debate without understanding what it is about. Pro argued that veganism isn't nutritious and therefore unhealthy but since I don't normally associate unhealthy lifestyles with criminality, there is a burden in my case to explain why poor diets should be criminalized in their view. As Pro didn't mention criminality they did not meet the threshold to win on arguments independent of Con's rebuttal. Con states that there are supplements for iron and protein, and so there is not really any risk for health in light of that. No further arguments are necessary.
Conduct against Pro for repeated forfeitures and I also didn't like that they did not really respond to Con's statements in round 1.
#5
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
arguments go to con because pro failed to defend the resolution and instead argued that veganism SHOULD be a crime rather than that it IS a crime.
conduct goes to con because pro forfeited multiple rounds.
#4
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Good job... Both of you
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
The affirmative case was countered with "xtra peanut butter sandwich at lunch" and "Flintstones vitamin," which says even more than the forfeitures. While the negative case was layered, the core argument on cost without benefit sums up everything important about this debate.
On BoP, even were we to add the word 'should' into the resolution or talk about crime in the non-legal sense, someone needs to be the victim of said crime; and no victims were ever identified.
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
What Dr.Franklin said
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Over half forfeit
Neither side convinced me