Being vegan is a crime
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 9 votes and with 30 points ahead, the winner is...
- 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
Being vegan should be a crime in my opinion, as as humans should consume meat. My opponent must prove me wrong
Full forfeit
Pro FF the majority of the rounds, that's poor conduct!
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..
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.
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.
Good job... Both of you
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.
What Dr.Franklin said
Over half forfeit
Neither side convinced me
"Perhaps an xtra peanut butter sandwich at lunch would serve public interests better than criminal penalties."
LOL
Thanks, all 4 voting!
*******************************************************************
>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
*******************************************************************
Thanks for voting!
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".
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.
" 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.
I would have to look into that thread. I'm for the most part a free speech absolutist.
A subject that is apparently worthy of a remarkable amount of discussion.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2069/the-word-tard
I see he called club a "retard". Is that a bannable offense?
Was pro banned?
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.
intel is fuzzy but I think its a ban, temp or perm based on some interaction w/ Club and/or ALT stuff.
Did he delete his account?
It was SOMEBODY not Somebody.
naw, Somebody hasn't been on DART for months.
https://www.debateart.com/participants/Somebody/debates?type=finished
free win for SOMEBODY
Good. Thx, Chris.
Im sorry, the 1,000 characters was a typo I meant to put 10,000. Abbreviations and links do not matter its fine
thx, Chris: I really like this short format. Do you have an opinion about abbreviations and/or links to citation?
How are you going to tell me what my debate is about sir. My points are that it is unhealthy and hurt the earth thats why i say its crime. You proved my point by bringing up smoking being unhealthy and should that be banned
"How can you prove that all humans being vegan would hurt the Earth?" Look it up
Yes smoking should be banned
Humans can get proteins from not only meat, but mushrooms, beans, some grains, etc. How can you prove that all humans being vegan would hurt the Earth? And also, this debate is not about whether vegans are unhealthy or hurt the earth. This is about if vegans should be banned, and your reasons are not enough for banning them. Smoking is unhealthy, should we ban smoking?
Humans need protein and you get protein from meat. If every human on earth became vegan that they would have a negative impact on earth
Not my problem
Why do so many American christians think that athiests want to make religion a crime?
I mean, I get that is what the propaganda your church and society throws at you but isn't it pretty obviously not true?
Just because I don't agree with Christians, doesn't mean I want to make Christianity a crime. Don't commit the strawman fallacy here.
Being vegan does harm? To who and how? Doesn't being vegan do less harm, since they don't kill animals?
Hi your welcome. Nice game of thrones debate. I'll let u make your first argument
Would you say that same statement towards Christians?
Being vegan does more harm than good
Bingo
Huh? Why should someone's personal choice that affects no one be a crime?
easy win to Con
He does have a huge burden of proof. I love to eat meat, but the research I have seen shows vegan diets can be really healthy. There are a lot of other reasons this wouldn't make sense, but I won't back seat debate.
That’s what the man said. 1000 words is tough. I wonder if Chris will allow heavy abbreviation and link in comments?
12 hours per argument?
Thx, Chris
https://www.debateart.com/debates/736
I would like to accept, but I need a break from debating. I'm mostly vegan.