Instigator / Pro
2
1501
rating
2
debates
50.0%
won
Topic
#2051

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
2
1

After 2 votes and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...

QueefJuice
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
20,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
1
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. It is not my burden of proof to uphold a standard american diet and I should not be pigeonholed as trying to prove eating junk foods or having poor lifestyle choices is optimal.

By accepting this debate you accept the Rules, Rounds, Definitions, And BOP.

-->
@User_2006

It's a weird one. If not for the deception, and not bothering to appeal the previous ban, I wouldn't mind so much.

Heck, I can think of a few non-exploitative reasons someone might want to be both sides in a debate.

-->
@Crocodile

Pretty sure. Either way, the accounts have chosen to present themselves as indistinguishable from alt accounts of Human.

I can see why people would create alts just to vote themselves and extract info on the forums, but debating yourself? That's just next level.

-->
@Barney

So these are the same exact people?

-->
@Human

***
I'm opting to not delete this debate, as I do appreciate the hard work you put into it.

-Ragnar, DM
***

If your going to be vegan, do your research on how to obtain the nutrients you need from other sources so you don't become deficient in anything.

-->
@fauxlaw

I would enjoy a sandwich with toasted bread, lettuce, cheese, ham, and mayo. It seems pretty omnivorous. I am not a vegan either but I admit eating veggies is definitely healthy.

-->
@User_2006

Nope. Omnivore all the way. I have incisors and canines. They're to tear flesh. There is an enzyme in saliva which sole purpose is to begin the digestion of flesh.

-->
@User_2006

Also, I'm not sure you can separate the environmental sense from "optimal health" (e.g. covid).

-->
@fauxlaw

I speculate that you aren't vegan?

-->
@pense

Well, Pro is talking about vegan diets, which means anything that is a meal and contain no meat is counted. Also, if you are using that argument it is up to no good because, no semantics, and this no changing the pragmatic sense the instigator created.

IMO veganism is not only one diet, it's a set of diets. Definitely there is a vegan diet that is not optimal, hence the resolution is trivially true. The question to me is: "is there a vegan diet as optimal as a non-vegan one?"

I mean, I am super evident in that veganism is the optimal diet in ane environmental sense, but for humans alone and only for eating? nope.

-->
@QueefJuice

Superb first argument! Well done. I often tell vegans, "You can keep your rice [the cultivated rice paddies emit methane], but leave my steak alone!"

-->
@QueefJuice
@LePelch

Don't forfeit.