Everyone should be a vegetarian or vegan
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 4 votes and with 13 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
No information
- Irritable bowel syndrome
- Soy/nut/bean/egg allergies
- Celiac disease
- Chron's disease
- Kidney failure
- Protein deficiency
- Iron/zinc deficiency
pro essentially argues in a rhetorical way that killing animals is unethical. He isn't arguing that vegetarianism/veganism is healthier but seems to be arguing it is unethical to kill and enslave animals. This point goes unaddressed, despite pro extending his argument and giving con another chance. Con doesn't seem to make much of an argument other than implying that some people cannot safely be on a vegan/vegetarian diet. Both sides failed to address the arguments of each other. Con does make an argument that BOP is fully on pro and pro never offers a rebuttal for this, even though I think BOP is shared in this type of debate, I will give this point to con. Here is the issue though, since neither side addressed the arguments of the other side, it is up to me figure out the impacts of each successful argument. Weighing the arguments, requires me to have to determine if I should value, human health over animal lives. I refuse to do this, I can't reliably make that judgement without using either a speciesism bias or using a bias which values animal life too much. Arguments tied. Both debaters failed. However con argues for a conduct point in the last round, while pro fails to argue for any points and I will award con for conduct due to him giving me the analysis in the final round to justify it.
Pro starts off the debate with a Strawman and proceeds to direct personal attacks at Con by labeling him 'autistic' as an insult.
Con mentions a list of conditions that make it burdensome or even downright lethal to stay on a vegetarian diet. Pro doesn't counter or refute these arguments, so they stay uncontested.
Pro provides borderline NO reasoning regarding his site, while Con did provide reasoning to believe the topic is wrong. Arg to Con.
For conduct points, as Pro often resulted in insults, this point goes to Con also.
Well, I suppose there is certainly some elegance in your "nothing exists outside of the text" approach.
Don't. If someone is employing sarcasm in a text-based debating site where everything and only anything in text form matters, treat it literally. In that case, it is entirely justified of you to treat it as a concession, which is what you did.
Can't tell if that's sarcasm or not
In R2, this is one of the most savage extendations I have ever seen.
"I have an autistic friend"
Yeah, I am crying for you right now.
bvump vot fors
I have positive thoughts about veganism. I don’t believe it should be mandated, but I would like for a law to exist where all companies that make meat are required to go from 100% meat to 99.5% meat, .5% plant protein. And then increase the plant percentage by .5% per year so in 200 years, we aren’t killing animals for food anymore. I’ve asked 3 people their thought on this idea, and they all like it, so I think it can take off.