Instigator / Pro
8
1470
rating
50
debates
40.0%
won
Topic
#2000

Food is not essential to the human body

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

zedvictor4
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
2
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
14
1442
rating
22
debates
34.09%
won
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

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 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.

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:

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).