Instigator / Pro
11
1890
rating
98
debates
93.37%
won
Topic
#4056

The majority of people should be vegan or vegetarian

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
2
1
Better conduct
1
2

After 2 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Novice_II
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One day
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
8
1687
rating
555
debates
68.11%
won
Description

Vegan: a person who does not eat any food derived from animals and who typically does not use other animal products.
Vegetarian: a person who does not eat meat, and sometimes other animal products, especially for moral, religious, or health reasons.

BOP = shared
Pro: The majority of people should be vegan or vegetarian
Con: The majority of people should NOT be vegan or vegetarian

-->
@RationalMadman

Well, since you were talking about how there would be a mass slaughtering of all meat in every meat farm, the least you could have done, before stating it like a fact ant not a hypothetical, was found a single CEO of a meat company, or an expert on the meat industry, or even, at minimum, a news article, that mentions it. Considering the seriousness of the claim.

Hypotheticals are discussed all the time. Experts, news articles, and UN Meetings regularly discuss hypotheticals. Wouldn't have been that difficult to find... Unless you're the only person who thinks it would happen.

And, FWIW, if you have fewer reliable sources than someone else, you did not have "more reliable sources." And certainly did not have better reliable sources. How could that possibly be? If you cite 3 experts and the other person cites 2, it doesn't matter if one expert is better than another. They are all experts. Unless there is an obvious disparity (like one expert got the Nobel Prize and the other 2 from your opponent are graduates of Full Sail University), the person with more reliable sources has better sources by definition.

-->
@RationalMadman

The importance of the arguments were weighed, from most important to not too important.

-->
@Public-Choice

This has never happened so how could I back up a very likely hypothetical?

-->
@Public-Choice

More sources shouldnt win that vote lol

-->
@Public-Choice

Good vote. Thank you for taking time out of your day to do the debaters the favor of evaluating their arguments

-->
@RationalMadman

If you'd have had more source material to back up your side, it would have been a tie. But you didn't. A simple counting exercise reveals this.

I wasn't "sloppy." I was unimpressed by both parties for half of the debate, the only clear determiner here was more reliable sources, which went to PRO.

All you had to do was back up the mass slaughtering and some of your views earlier than you did, and you might have won it out. But PRO literally didn't get sources for half of your major arguments until at least round 3. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. That holds true even if you're RationalMadman.

-->
@whiteflame

no it doesn't, but I understand how sloppy a vote I myself can get away with now.

-->
@RationalMadman
@Novice_II
@Public-Choice

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Public-Choice // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 2 points to Pro (Sources)
>Reason for Decision: see voting tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter sufficiently covers the issue of sources. While he does leave out discussion of sources presented by Con in R1, the RFD clearly details what the voter sees as the biggest deficits in Con's sources, which stands even with those sources taken into consideration.
**************************************************

neither voter remotely understood the debate, weaver just counted arguments instead of weighing how crucial they were.

-->
@RationalMadman
@Novice_II
@WeaverofFate

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: WeaverofFate // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Pro (Arguments, S&G), 3 points to Con (Sources, Conduct)
>Reason for Decision: see voting tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter goes into great depth on how he views the arguments and sources presented in the debate, which is sufficient to award these points. The voter is allowed to use the tally system he's employed here to award those points. S&G and Conduct are done via the same method, and while that does mean that they do not meet the voting standards since each of these require meeting certain thresholds and not a certain number of mistakes/instances of misconduct, these two points nonetheless balance out so, given how close this voting period is to ending, the vote will stand as is.
**************************************************

-->
@Barney
@Vader
@whiteflame

Please moderate the votes I reported 3 days ago

-->
@Barney
@whiteflame

I literally had benefits of meat and fish in round 1 and 2, public choice is lying in his vote.

-->
@Wylted

Thanks prez!

I watched enough of the video to know that a ton of effort was put into the vote. I haven't analyzed the debate so I won't speculate as to who won but it was a good video

-->
@Sir.Lancelot

That's unfortunate, but you're right

-->
@WeaverofFate

You’re wasting your time.

Novice_ll will never acknowledge any mistakes he made. His default instinct is to report votes that go against him or label critics ‘confused.’

-->
@Novice_II

I literally have a video of me reading the whole debate out loud, looking at your source, reading the source, and then saying how I found it wrong, attached to the vote itself. You're just wrong and got called out for a bad framing of information. I didn't expect it to be this big of a deal considering you won by my vote.

I'll make it very simple for you

One of your sources says that not eating meat leads to more strokes due to the deficiencies of micronutrients that cannot be corrected by that person.

The other source claims that people who follow a veg/vegan diet reduces the risk for multiple conditions (including strokes).

Both simultaneously cannot be true. Unless you would mention something along the lines of "one group was on supplements and the other was not", it invalidates the frame you're presenting.

If you would have framed the source correctly by stating other factors effecting the study to attempt to explain the contradiction, I wouldn't have awarded the points to Con. But, you didn't. Look at your sources next time or actually write a better citation. Jesus.

-->
@WeaverofFate

Hmm, a lot of confusion is going on here on your part.

I am or really convinced you know what a contradiction is in logic, are tracking what I am saying, have read the sources in question, or are tracking the claims I have made in the debate. Not really looking to explain this to you anymore, but I would encourage you not to make false claims.

-->
@Novice_II

The claim follows this logic

Eating meat causes these diseases---> these diseases harm us ----> vegan/vegetarianism has us abstain from meat ---> therefore, vegan/vegetarianism reduces the chance of this disease. (The disease being strokes in this case)

You used the other source to promote this logic:

Eating meat causes a build up of cholesterol that leads to coronary artery disease ----> vegetarianism/veganism reduces the rate of coronary artery disease but increases the rate of strokes ----> more detrimental effects were seen due to eating meat overall due to these conditions ---> therefore, the increased risk for stroke is the healthier option for vegetarianism/veganism compared to eating meat and coronary artery disease.

It's a contradiction which invalidates one of your sources, since if we assume that the way you frame the sources is true, they have conflicting claims. It points out a common deficiency CAUSED by not consuming meat regularly (B12). If we really want to get anal about it, you also misrepresent the source as it clearly lists other factors in addition to meat for the study, such as weight and calories, which would further invalidate the framing. It was a mistake to include the two sources together in the same argument.

-->
@WeaverofFate

From what you just posted, I am not seeing what exactly the contradiction is. It seems like one of my sources is talking about how eating meat makes the risk of these diseases go up, and the other is saying that a given resource deficiency can as well. Eating meat actually causes these diseases, whereas on some modes of veganism, the lack of something brings about a less bad result.

-->
@Novice_II

Forgot to ping you

Apart from vastly being imperative towards the health and wellness of individuals, the reduction in severe medical emergencies likely comes with prospective savings in the medical field. Mayo Clinic also confirms what we would expect of the converse research shows that "people who eat red meat are at a higher risk of death from heart disease, stroke or diabetes. Processed meats also make the risk of death from these diseases go up."

^ Allusion that veg/vegan diets would bring down strokes

This is extensive to the point that one of the key measures we can take to reduce large-scale impositions of global suffering from pandemics and animal-borne diseases is reducing our demand for and consumption of meat products. There are several imperative health benefits to veganism or vegetarianism. Some studies reported upon by BBC for example found that people who eat vegan and vegetarian diets "have a lower risk of heart disease, but a higher risk of stroke, possibly partly due to a lack of B12" and further that "those who didn't eat meat had 10 fewer cases of heart disease and three more strokes per 1,000 people compared with the meat-eaters."

^ Contradictory implication

-->
@WeaverofFate

"One source claimed that strokes were reduced while another claimed that strokes increased due to a veg/vegan diet."

Can you show quotes in question indexed to each source? All due respect, this is not really telling me anything other than repeating the claim.

-->
@AustinL0926

Haha well I am just cool like that

-->
@Novice_II

One source claimed that strokes were reduced while another claimed that strokes increased due to a veg/vegan diet. It could be argued that the source that claimed veganism limited strokes didn't isolate the variable (as they stated other factors like calories and weight). However, it was not represented as such in your argument, which made me need to award sources to Con as he did use his sources more effectively and did provide high quality sources like yours as well.

-->
@WeaverofFate

Thanks for voting, but can you specifically show what the contradiction in sources was? I didn't really follow what you were talking about there.

-->
@WeaverofFate

In all my time on this website, this is the first time I've ever seen a vote with points split like that.

-->
@RationalMadman
@Novice_II

I submitted my vote.

My gut feeling was to give Novice the argument vote, but I didn't feel it was clear enough to support outright. Though I could have made a case for it. My opinions on the debate arguments are still there though. Overall I did think Novice did a better job than RM on arguments, but both of you didn't really fully convince me on anything except for sources. That was the ultimate defining line for me.

Will vote on this tomorrow

-->
@Public-Choice

Thank you; I look forward to the vote.

I will try to get to this one.

I also owe AustinL and Lancelot a vote on their prison debate.

-->
@Kbub530

Do you mind voting on this debate, seeing as how you are a fan of this topic?

-->
@Barney
@whiteflame
@K_Michael
@Public-Choice
@AustinL0926

high rated clash, please do vote.

-->
@TheUnderdog

You are a president of Canada. You poop gold.

-->
@Best.Korea

“ You should care though, it means I have something you will only get by paying someone.”

You got roasted. I could get a girlfriend, but I’m not interested.

You are the president of USA. You have great skills. Autistic retard.

You may want to but that is rape and sexual harassment to act upon.

You are great. We should all suck your autistic dick.

You should care though, it means I have something you will only get by paying someone.

I dont care about your excuses, or the fact that Novice is your girlfriend.

Yeah I copied it. That is why I am the contender and not the instigator of this debate, it is because I made it.

Invented? No.
But I happen to invent one 1 hour ago and you copied it almost word for word.

I am not angry. I understand. I wont report you. You should copy from me more. I will send you a list of things to copy from me.

Yeah...You invented vegetarianism debates. Sorry for the plagiarism.

Why the fuck would you copy my debate? Well, will be fun watching you two fight over this ridicolous topic.