Instigator / Pro
Points: 8

Food is not essential to the human body

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 2 votes the winner is ...
zedvictor4
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Society
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
Points: 14
Description
Dictionary
Search for a word
food
/fo͞od/
Learn to pronounce
noun
any nutritious substance that people or animals eat or drink or that plants absorb in order to maintain life and growth.
"we need food and water"
Similar:
nourishment
sustenance
nutriment
subsistence
fare
bread
daily bread
cooking
baking
cuisine
foodstuffs
edibles
refreshments
meals
provisions
rations
stores
supplies
solids
vivers
eats
eatables
nosh
grub
chow
nibbles
scoff
tuck
chuck
victuals
vittles
viands
commons
meat
comestibles
provender
aliment
commissariat
viaticum
fodder
feed
forage
herbage
pasturage
silage
Round 1
Published:
This is the 2000th debate on the side, and I apologize for not responding earlier. You must be kept waiting in front of the computer.

My opponent could have accepted this debate because he knew, that in common sense, we need food and water to live. However, it is not the case.


Philadelphia Experiment had told us that matter can be transported through electromagnetism. So, a great deal of a meal could be just transported into the stomach, theoretically, with enough control. 

Because the food is teleported to the stomach, then there is no need for eating it, and since of the definition, anything that isn't eaten is not food, thus nutrients could be absorbed without being eaten. 

Thus, humans can survive without consuming food.
Published:
O.K.

So congratulations on the 2000th debate.

And I don't sit around in front of the computer waiting, so in your own time.

We need food and water to live. However, it is not the case.
I would suggest that we need food and water to live irrespective of how and in what form we might acquire it.


Consume:
Eat drink or injest (food or drink).

Injest:
Take (food, drink, or another substance) into the body by swallowing it or absorbing it.

Absorb:
Take in or soak up (energy or liquid or other substance) by chemical or physical action.


And further:
1. Does my opponent have any evidence to support the "Philadelphia Experiment" ?
2. Has my opponent ever witnessed or experienced the teleportation of nutrition into the human stomach by the means of electromagnetism?

Round 1 conclusion:
"Food is not essential"....Food (any nutritious substance) most definitely is essential.

"A great deal of a meal could be just transported"....Could be hypothetically....A great deal is not everything...But nonetheless the meal is still essential.
Round 2
Published:
I would suggest that we need food and water to live irrespective of how and in what form we might acquire it.
No. Water may be water but it is not consumed from the mouth, it doesn't define as food. Nothing is food until they can be eaten. 


Gold, in thin sheets and sprinkles, is a part of a meal of a rich person. Gold is edible in this form, however, that doesn't mean you can go into the national reserve and eat the **** out of the gold bars. Meat and Salad may comprise part of your poop, but if you are told to eat those parts, you won't. Poop isn't food even it is made out of them. 


Eating poop isn't as dangerous as you might think. The poop is not meant to be eaten. Combining sweet milk, rock salt, peaches, dill pickles, jalapenos, human flesh, and egg whites, and it will be a thing that no one will be willing to eat. Combining food enough and they won't be food anymore unless they are eaten by an ultra-dense person who has no sense of taste whatsoever and that person judges it as food. The poop and this heck of a dubious mess will not be food because no one eats them to either eat it as food or use it to absorb nutrients. 

Conclusion: Things made of food won't be food anymore if the product isn't going to be eaten by anyone as food. Chowing down machine gears at the risk of going into the hospital dead or alive while that, if you will be alive, you judge it as anything but food, then gears aren't food. 

Conclusion: Substances or mixtures will not be food unless someone eats it and judges it as food. Also, part of the definition that my opponent would agree with, is that if something that you eat just harms you(such as gunpowder, and I don't suggest eating any amounts of gunpowder), then it is not food. However, I need to move on because we can't rely on gunpowder to live.

I have a new argument here. 
We could inject nutrients just from the butthole and expect it to go into the stomach and live long and prosper. One can do this instead of eating if their digestive system is partly dysfunctional, especially about the esophagus. One can inject things that aren't used as food into the butthole and expect it to work, as it says:
it is likely that only the end-products of normal digestion such as sugarsamino acidssalt and alcohol, will be absorbed.
These things are normally not fit to be consumed by mouth, but they are fit for a nutrient enema or whatever that is called. 

Published:
Let us not forget that the proposition was:

Food is not essential to the human body.


Food:
"Any nutritious substance that people or animals eat or drink"....Consume, injest, absorb.

So, irrespective of method, or through which orifice, or in what form we derive nutrition, nutrition is nonetheless essential.


In fact, throughout their discourse my opponent has never attempted to substantiate their original claim. All that they have successfully achieved, is the inference that though the methodology and format of how we acquire nutrition, could possibly be variable,  food is nonetheless essential to the human body.  


If anyone should have any doubts concerning the essentiality of food, then a simple test would be to not consume any food or drink for a month and then decide.....
Though I wouldn't recommend this.


What more can I say?

Other than......Beam me up dinner Scotty.
Added:
--> @User_2006
Laying traps and playing on semantics aren't what this site - or debating in general - should be about, in my view. Valuable debates occur when a good-faith exchange of opposing ideas takes place.
#15
Added:
Moreover, relative to my post #13, according to U.S. Nav archives, the U.S.S. Eldridge was never near Philadelphia during the alleged "experiment," and ship's log shows no mention of said "experiment," nor its alleged effects., although both issues are part of the movie of that name produced by New World Pictures in 1984. It's a fiction, along with, to date, the evidence of teleportation from anywhere to anywhere.
#14
Added:
As Melcharaz suggested, this appears to be a semantics debate, turning not on the word "food," but "consumption."
#13
Added:
--> @PressF4Respect
I'm fine with the content of the description, but with every word on a separate line, I have to scroll twice as far as usual to read the debates.
#12
Added:
--> @PressF4Respect
Yeah, I'd like to believe that we still have some good debates here :)
#11
Added:
--> @K_Michael
I mean, there's still SOME value in the description, like learning the words "victuals", "viands", "viaticum", and "comestibles"
Might use that vocab in a fancy restaurant someday 🤔
#10
Added:
--> @DebateArt.com
Oof.
I mean, there are still SOME good new debates here... right?
#9
Added:
--> @User_2006
On the nature of the debate description: waste of time on your part and mine.
#8
Added:
--> @PressF4Respect
Six months? Wishful thinking lol
We barely have any new debates these days :/
#7
Added:
--> @DebateArt.com
"You can try again when we have 3000 haha"
Welp, guess I'll see you again in six months, lol
#6
Added:
--> @PressF4Respect
Oh yeah, that they have...
You can try again when we have 3000 haha
#5
Added:
--> @DebateArt.com
Oh wow have the times gone by...
I still remember when I made a "1000th debate" that never came to fruition, lol
#4
Added:
--> @User_2006
Wooooooooooooo, that's amazing news!
#3
Added:
--> @DebateArt.com
Hey, this is the 2000th debate on the entire site!
Instigator
#2
Added:
Go without food and water, see how long ya last. Lol. Unless this is a semantic debate
#1
#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:
Pro did not effectively differentiate the noun food, to the verb eat. It appears as if there was a semantical effort, however, ingestion, nutrition, eating were not defined in a convincing manner. The Philidelphia experiment was an interesting attempt at an alternative explanation... however it was thin and lacked any developed foundation. Therefore vote to Con.
Sources, S&G, and Conduct are unremarkable.
#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:
Arguing not all food stuff should be considered food and some things which are considered food won't keep us alive, misses the core thing that we still need some form of food to be absorbed. Con capitalizes on this easy reminder.
Regarding the Philadelphia Experiment, nothing about a hoax of an invisible ship (that's what I found when skimming the opening of the link) seems to imply food teleportation (also not sure why it would cease to be considered a "nutritious substance," or even that such a method would make it not count as eaten). When con asked for evidence related to the point, none was offered.
For pro's tactic to be valid, a definition of eat would need to be provided. Probably also a clearer statement that things are only food it they are ate by that definition (the current one uses plants absorbing things, suggesting the method of intake is not what defines things are food).