Instigator / Pro
20
1518
rating
6
debates
58.33%
won
Topic

Governments should require that meat packaging include ethical warning labels

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
9
0
Sources points
6
4
Spelling and grammar points
3
3
Conduct points
2
3

With 3 votes and 10 points ahead, the winner is ...

Tejretics
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Society
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Con
10
1530
rating
6
debates
66.67%
won
Description
~ 312 / 5,000

"Ethical warning labels" refer to "labels that inform consumers of the physical and mental suffering involved in producing the animal products they are considering buying."

No new arguments in the final round. Character limited to 10,000 characters, i.e. if a post exceeds 10,000 characters, it is an auto-loss.

Added:
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Con concedes

Added:
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Con forfeits and Pro provides sufficient reason to have the packaging.

The approach Con should have taken is the nihilistic, meat-endorsing one. This is actually a debate where the objective truth is Con but subjective truth for a non-psychopath is Pro. This comes down to how much we care about animal suffering.

Con could have won but I will respect their right to forfeit.

Added:
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Thoth conceded the debate.