Instigator / Pro
Points: 5

Veganism is not the optimal diet for humans.

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 10 votes the winner is ...
LePelch
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Health
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
9,000
Contender / Con
Points: 6
Description
Resolution:
Veganism is not the optimal diet for humans.
Rules:
(1) Debater must have typing experience and internet access.
(2) Place your arguments and sources inside the debate
(3) Structure the debate in a readable, Coherent fashion.
(4) No Semantics, trolling, or lawyering.
Rounds:
(1) Main Argument
(2) Rebuttal to opponent's main argument only. No new arguments.
(3) Evaluation of main arguments and rebuttals + voting issues (one paragraph). No new arguments.
Definitions:
Veganism - A diet that abstains from meat and all other animal products
Optimal Diet - The diet which provides the best level of health
Humans - Human beings in general
Burden of Proof:
Shared burden of proof. I have to prove that veganism isn't the optimal diet for humans and the contender has to prove that veganism is the optimal diet for humans.
By accepting this debate you accept the Rules, Rounds, Definitions, And BOP.
Round 1
Forfeited
Published:
The Academy of Dietetics and Nutrition (the largest body of certified nutritionists/dietitians/practitioners), have released a research study demonstrating that eating a plant based diet is perfectly adequate for all stages of life, and that "Vegetarians and vegans are at reduced risk of certain health conditions, including ischemic heart disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, certain types of cancer, and obesity."

I am defining the optimal human diet to be a diet that puts one at a reduced risk of developing diseases and certain cancers, i.e., a diet which increases your chances of good health. 

Therefore, if eating plant based reduces risk of developing diseases and certain cancers, then it follows that eating plant based is the optimal diet for humans. 


Round 2
Forfeited
Forfeited
Round 3
Forfeited
Forfeited
Added:
--> @LePelch
Your opponent has requested this debate be deleted. I've tried to PM you, but no response. Do you want this debate deleted as well?
#20
Added:
Tie the debate. We started our new debate here and are actually debating this time:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2051/veganism-is-not-the-optimal-diet-for-humans
Instigator
#19
Added:
--> @Crocodile
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Crocodile // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 1:0; 1 points to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate has been deemed non-moderated. Therefore, no moderation action is appropriate for this vote.
Full Forfeitures, explicit concessions, subjective competitions, truisms, and comedy (even if facetious) are not eligible for moderation (barring certain exceptions). Considering this debate is dually forfeited, moderation has no role in this debate.
#18
Added:
--> @K_Michael
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: K_Michael // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 1:0; 1 points to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate has been deemed non-moderated. Therefore, no moderation action is appropriate for this vote.
Full Forfeitures, explicit concessions, subjective competitions, truisms, and comedy (even if facetious) are not eligible for moderation (barring certain exceptions). Considering this debate is dually forfeited, moderation has no role in this debate.
#17
Added:
--> @fauxlaw
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw// Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 1:0; 1 points to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate has been deemed non-moderated. Therefore, no moderation action is appropriate for this vote.
Full Forfeitures, explicit concessions, subjective competitions, truisms, and comedy (even if facetious) are not eligible for moderation (barring certain exceptions). Considering this debate is dually forfeited, moderation has no role in this debate.
#16
Added:
--> @QueefJuice
Done. Make sure to contact the user Virtuoso or the user Ragnar if people keep voting Con.
#15
Added:
--> @fauxlaw
"If a singular argument by sourcing is flawed, it should not be awarded. See my vote"
Why did you vote Pro instead of tie it?
#14
Added:
Yo guys, just tie this debate. We couldn't finish it due to some things that came up, but we are starting a new one now that we have time.
Instigator
#13
Added:
--> @Melcharaz
Re: your #1: why do you assume A&E did not eat meat? Because the Bible doesn't say otherwise? It doesn't speak to their final digestive results, either, but I have it on good authority [human anatomy and biological functions] that they did it in the woods.
#12
Added:
--> @User_2006
If a singular argument by sourcing is flawed, it should not be awarded. See my vote
#11
Added:
There was no commandment for them to eat meat until after sin. Read genesis. They were commanded to eat of every tree and herb. Genesis 2:9 and genesis 2:16-19
#10
Added:
--> @Melcharaz
What record says Adam and Eve never ate meat in the Garden? There was no mention of meat-eating in the Garden, but then, there was no mention of eating bread, either, until it was mentioned as a duty of sorrow. Nor of drinking water, for that matter. Nothing about bathing in water. The lack of these details does not mean they were not done. You don't see any instruction of urinating, or defecating. Were these not done, either? Be serious; the Bible is not a tell-all story, is it?
#9
Added:
Its not that he didnt want us to, its just there was never the need for bloodshed till we sinned. Since then we are given provisions because our appetites are now lustful. That and the shedding of life would be needful to push back sin. Animals had no sin, but they had awareness of Gods order and they had life. Thats one reason why abels offering was chosen, rather than the fruit cain brought. Aside from his heart toward God.
#8
Added:
--> @Melcharaz
Why does God create meat if he doesn't want humans to consume them?
#7
Added:
I still dont know what question you are asking.
#6
#10
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
Like it or not, con was the only one to provide an argument, thus he wins by default.
#9
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
Same reasoning as Crocodile.
#8
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
This is to prevent an inappropriate win by CON.
#7
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
The Instigator did not provide any arguments.
#6
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
Literally the only one who said stuff. Con's argument is weak, but it's better than nothing.
#5
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
No one did anything, therefore I think it’s safe to vote a tie.
#4
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
The criterion for a 1 point voting system is "Which participant won the debate?"
I hesitate to call anyone a winner when only half a round was posted. I'm going to vote for Pro because I believe that it isn't fair for Con to reap the rewards of a huge points ratio and the resulting rating boost.
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
Despite a double FF, one forfeited less.
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
regardless of the single argument of Con, both parties fully forfeited the debate by 2/3 of rounds - more than half, therefore, by DART policy, both parties must lose. Further, the argument by Con, supported by the ADN reference, only alleges that a vegan diet is an adequate diet, and not that an omnivore diet is not. Therefore, both have the potential to be adequate diets for good human health. In order to reverse an inappropriate win by Con on this basis, I'm awarding point to Pro to even the appropriate score due to double forfeit
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
Con is the only one that brought any argument to the foundation. Points to Con.