Veganism is not the optimal diet for humans.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 10 votes and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 9,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Resolution:
Veganism is not the optimal diet for humans.
Rules:
(1) Debater must have typing experience and internet access.
(2) Place your arguments and sources inside the debate
(3) Structure the debate in a readable, Coherent fashion.
(4) No Semantics, trolling, or lawyering.
Rounds:
(1) Main Argument
(2) Rebuttal to opponent's main argument only. No new arguments.
(3) Evaluation of main arguments and rebuttals + voting issues (one paragraph). No new arguments.
Definitions:
Veganism - A diet that abstains from meat and all other animal products
Optimal Diet - The diet which provides the best level of health
Humans - Human beings in general
Burden of Proof:
Shared burden of proof. I have to prove that veganism isn't the optimal diet for humans and the contender has to prove that veganism is the optimal diet for humans.
By accepting this debate you accept the Rules, Rounds, Definitions, And BOP.
I am defining the optimal human diet to be a diet that puts one at a reduced risk of developing diseases and certain cancers, i.e., a diet which increases your chances of good health.
Your opponent has requested this debate be deleted. I've tried to PM you, but no response. Do you want this debate deleted as well?
Tie the debate. We started our new debate here and are actually debating this time:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2051/veganism-is-not-the-optimal-diet-for-humans
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Crocodile // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 1:0; 1 points to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate has been deemed non-moderated. Therefore, no moderation action is appropriate for this vote.
Full Forfeitures, explicit concessions, subjective competitions, truisms, and comedy (even if facetious) are not eligible for moderation (barring certain exceptions). Considering this debate is dually forfeited, moderation has no role in this debate.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: K_Michael // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 1:0; 1 points to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate has been deemed non-moderated. Therefore, no moderation action is appropriate for this vote.
Full Forfeitures, explicit concessions, subjective competitions, truisms, and comedy (even if facetious) are not eligible for moderation (barring certain exceptions). Considering this debate is dually forfeited, moderation has no role in this debate.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw// Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 1:0; 1 points to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate has been deemed non-moderated. Therefore, no moderation action is appropriate for this vote.
Full Forfeitures, explicit concessions, subjective competitions, truisms, and comedy (even if facetious) are not eligible for moderation (barring certain exceptions). Considering this debate is dually forfeited, moderation has no role in this debate.
Done. Make sure to contact the user Virtuoso or the user Ragnar if people keep voting Con.
"If a singular argument by sourcing is flawed, it should not be awarded. See my vote"
Why did you vote Pro instead of tie it?
Yo guys, just tie this debate. We couldn't finish it due to some things that came up, but we are starting a new one now that we have time.
Re: your #1: why do you assume A&E did not eat meat? Because the Bible doesn't say otherwise? It doesn't speak to their final digestive results, either, but I have it on good authority [human anatomy and biological functions] that they did it in the woods.
If a singular argument by sourcing is flawed, it should not be awarded. See my vote
There was no commandment for them to eat meat until after sin. Read genesis. They were commanded to eat of every tree and herb. Genesis 2:9 and genesis 2:16-19
What record says Adam and Eve never ate meat in the Garden? There was no mention of meat-eating in the Garden, but then, there was no mention of eating bread, either, until it was mentioned as a duty of sorrow. Nor of drinking water, for that matter. Nothing about bathing in water. The lack of these details does not mean they were not done. You don't see any instruction of urinating, or defecating. Were these not done, either? Be serious; the Bible is not a tell-all story, is it?
Its not that he didnt want us to, its just there was never the need for bloodshed till we sinned. Since then we are given provisions because our appetites are now lustful. That and the shedding of life would be needful to push back sin. Animals had no sin, but they had awareness of Gods order and they had life. Thats one reason why abels offering was chosen, rather than the fruit cain brought. Aside from his heart toward God.
Why does God create meat if he doesn't want humans to consume them?
I still dont know what question you are asking.
Oh sure no, because God could have already entered the information in my brain.
You want to know why God created animals? Or why God allowed us to eat them?
I hate to turn this into a religious debate, but Why does God create meat if he doesn't want humans to consume them?
Veganism is not vegetarianism mechtard
I disagree. Adam and eve never ate meat while they were sinless. A person can live on fruits, nuts, bread, milk and other plants quite easily and optimally. Taste and access is the main factors.