Food is not essential to the human body
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
- 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
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
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.
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).
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.
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.
As Melcharaz suggested, this appears to be a semantics debate, turning not on the word "food," but "consumption."
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.
Yeah, I'd like to believe that we still have some good debates here :)
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 🤔
Oof.
I mean, there are still SOME good new debates here... right?
On the nature of the debate description: waste of time on your part and mine.
Six months? Wishful thinking lol
We barely have any new debates these days :/
"You can try again when we have 3000 haha"
Welp, guess I'll see you again in six months, lol
Oh yeah, that they have...
You can try again when we have 3000 haha
Oh wow have the times gone by...
I still remember when I made a "1000th debate" that never came to fruition, lol
Wooooooooooooo, that's amazing news!
Hey, this is the 2000th debate on the entire site!
Go without food and water, see how long ya last. Lol. Unless this is a semantic debate