Humans can eat raw meat
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 6 votes and with 22 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
No information
You are insulting cultures around the world and denying an obvious fact by accepting this debate on the Con side. Forfeit now or prepare to be decimated.
Humans can put raw meat in their mouth and swallow it.
Meat is harmful for health? In what quantity and when your quality standards are what?
Meat is expensive? Only if you're a poor loser.
Meat is harmful for health? In what quantity and when your quality standards are what?
Even if I just take the statement that meat eating harms animals and that vegans live longer like a large cock in my ass hole, that doesn't change the fact that humans can eat meat and even raw meat.
You are appealing to subjective standards of beauty. Who says fat people aren't sexier than skinny people? There are meat eaters and vegans of all body types either way.
that doesn't change the fact that humans can eat meat and even raw meat
Pro did not eat Korea. He chewed him up and spit him out!
Round 3 is an outright concession, don't report my vote unless Best Korea denies he conceded it.
The debate is a truism, for which con attempts to move the goalpost but fails to list any reasons why his standard should be preferred. Had Con done so, his proofs would have won out.
A clear troll debate. It is like they are the same person. The narrative is the same, and neither of them are taking this seriously. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark
I grade the standards in-order.
[ ] - is personal thoughts not regarded.
[Pro uses truism, wow! So impressed!]
Besides that, con states the obvious: Humans can eat (put in mouth and swalllw) meat. Pro doesn't counter besides saying it's bad, and harmful to humans and animals.
Let's look at the burden:
"Humans can eat raw meat"
Pro has fufilled the burden by showing good raw meat recipes, and they can eat it regardless. Con does not. Just stating it's harmful (humans and animals) and vegans are usually skinny and hot, but the burden is not: "Is raw meat better to eat" or something along those lines.
Also, con admits to con's main argument ssying: "Well, yeah, thats a fact."
[I don't blame con, it's truism. Like who knew humans can eat raw meat regardleds of side effects? Nooo.. I didn't know.]
But con slightly concedes to that argument. Either way, pro wins this by proving exactly the burden.
ARGUMENTS: Pro.
Pro's sources were irreverent. Which means this does not contribute towards "better sources".
SOURCES: Tie.
Nothing horrible.
LEGIBILITY: Tie.
Con handled pro's slight attacks at calling poor people losers. Con says they happen to be poor, pro continues. And well, I am just sooo deeply hurt for con over here. Con handled it well!
CONDUCT: Con.
The debate essentially comes down to Con using himself as an example while also admitting that Con is not representative of the human population, which means Con effectively had done nothing while Pro made general arguments.
Humans can eat raw meat, but should they?
You guys with these trap debates, of course they can, but doesn't mean they should. Burden is easy for pro.