Pineapple on pizza should be allowed
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 7 votes and with 38 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 9,090
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Definition provided. I have learned from my loss with Pense.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pizza
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pineapple
- More than half of the people thinks pineapple pizza is okay.
- Pineapple pizza is not more unhealthy than other toppings.
- Pineapple pizzas are in popular pizza diners, especially in Hawaii and Australia. Cutting stock on these things will be massively inconvenient.
Pineapple on pizza is disgusting
If one gladiator stands in the coliseum while his opponent pees his own breeches than slits his own throat, the less wet swordsman obviously wins the day. PRO offered a well researched opinion in good faith and CON only replied with ad hom and bad faith only- worse conduct than forfeit and absent any assertion relevant to topic. One of the few efforts on this site that could have been improved by full forfeit.
Con didn't provide any arguments and had terrible conduct.
Arguments: Pro offered several arguments, with multiple sources [and only one wiki! - yeah] in favor of pineapple on pizza, including health, taste, and acclamation of pizza eaters. Con offered the argument that it is disgusting, but further denigrated Pro's arguments. points to Pro
Sourcing: Pro had multiple qualified sources. Con ad no sources but personal opinion. points to Pro.
S&G: Pro had one grammar error "...of the people thinks..." plural noun, singular verb. Con had multiple errors: "wasnt," [twice] and "didnt." [no apostrophes. Point to pro
Conduct: Con: "you dirtbag." Pro was professional: Point to Pro.
Basically a concession.
Pro was the only person to offer an argument and Con called him a dirtbag. That is really bad conduct.
Arguments:
Pro made two relatively strong arguments for why pineapple on pizza should be allowed (the health benefits and the fact that it is a somewhat popular pizza topping). On the other hand, Con only provided his own opinion ("Pineapple on pizza is disgusting") followed by a rant. Argument point to Pro.
Sources:
Pro provided polls and an article to substantiate his claims. Con provided no sources whatsoever. Sources point to Pro.
Conduct:
Con called Pro a 'dirtbag' and generally blasts Pro with insulting language in Round 2. This is bad conduct, thus conduct point goes to pro.
Con completely trolled baselessly asserting that pineapple is disgusting and calling Pro a dirtbag and having consistently sardonic tone in Round 2.
Only Pro used sources and only Pro even remotely made an argument that used other people's taste and factors like health.
I don't even have the power to delete comments but I just thought I'd take care of that one LOL
**************************************************
>Reported Comment: Ragnar // Mod action: Not Removed
>Reason for Mod Action:
The reported comment contained no reportable content.
**************************************************
I am finally winning something.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: oromagi // Mod action: Not Removed (borderline)
>Points Awarded: 7:0; All points to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
**************************************************
I am finally winning something
When the topic is very evident, I use your style, which is short description+Source.
cool to see I influenced someones argument style. LoL
Damn, you just roasted a banned debater.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Crocodile // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7:0; All points to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
I'm very lax on certain things just being implied (such as the non-forfeiting side not forfeiting... hence why I want to change the voting rules), but it needs to be said: Advertising your debate is fine, but it in itself cannot be the reason for your allotment, even on an FF.
**************************************************
Crocodile
13 hours ago
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✔ ✗ ✗ 3 points
Better sources ✔ ✗ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Reason:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2093/is-erict-a-sh-tbag
*Is tHiS NoOb tRapPIng??? "??:?!??!*
https://images3.memedroid.com/images/UPLOADED382/5c0383f5d5257.jpeg
fuck you you bitch
I fucking love your argument. Except the fact that you're a shitbag
EricT sure is very ambitious.
I see no reason to disallow 🍍 on 🍕
No, it is meant to be mentally and rhetorically allowed. I am trying to make people believe it is okay to put pineapple on pizza. That aside. I predict RM will accept this but I'd hate to see such a great debater to debate me 4 times in a row and winning them.
"Allowed" as in legally permitted?