Instigator / Pro
33
1481
rating
5
debates
40.0%
won
Topic
#1187

Being vegan is a crime

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
9
27
Better sources
16
18
Better legibility
7
9
Better conduct
1
9

After 9 votes and with 30 points ahead, the winner is...

oromagi
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Twelve hours
Max argument characters
1,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
63
1922
rating
117
debates
97.44%
won
Description

Being vegan should be a crime in my opinion, as as humans should consume meat. My opponent must prove me wrong

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Full forfeit

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Pro FF the majority of the rounds, that's poor conduct!

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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..

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Good job... Both of you

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

What Dr.Franklin said

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Over half forfeit

Neither side convinced me