Instigator / Pro
5
1501
rating
2
debates
50.0%
won
Topic
#2007

Veganism is not the optimal diet for humans.

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Winner
5
6

After 10 votes and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...

LePelch
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
9,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
6
1499
rating
2
debates
50.0%
won
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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:

Like it or not, con was the only one to provide an argument, thus he wins by default.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:

Same reasoning as Crocodile.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:

This is to prevent an inappropriate win by CON.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:

The Instigator did not provide any arguments.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:

Literally the only one who said stuff. Con's argument is weak, but it's better than nothing.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:

No one did anything, therefore I think it’s safe to vote a tie.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:

Despite a double FF, one forfeited less.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
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

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:

Con is the only one that brought any argument to the foundation. Points to Con.