Instigator / Pro

Best.Korea

1250

rating

394

debates

39.59%

won

Topic

#4055

Everyone should be a vegetarian or vegan

Status

Finished

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

Winner & statistics

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 4 votes and with 13 points ahead, the winner is...

AustinL0926

Tags

Health

Parameters

Publication date: 01.11.2023 06:17PM
Last updated date: 02.11.2023 05:12PM
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

Contender / Con

AustinL0926

1636

rating

debates

93.94%

won

Description

No information

Round 1

Best.Korea

01.11.2023 06:42PM

Pro

I dont remember debating you before.

Alright, go ahead and tell us why you chose a side that justifies the killing of animals for your pleasure.

AustinL0926

01.11.2023 08:19PM

Con

I. Constructives

"Everyone" means "every person." [1]

As such, BoP is on PRO to argue that every single person currently alive should be a vegan/vegetarian.

This includes people with serious health issues that preclude them from being a vegan/vegetarian, including:

Irritable bowel syndrome
Soy/nut/bean/egg allergies
Celiac disease
Chron's disease
Kidney failure
Protein deficiency
Iron/zinc deficiency

As well as babies, the elderly, the pregnant, and the sick.

PRO must prove that every single person with any (or multiple) of these conditions should be vegetarian or vegan.

Short round, back to PRO.

II. Sources

1: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/everyone

Round 2

Best.Korea

01.11.2023 08:36PM

Pro

We should kill animals. We should torture animals for our pleasure. We should imprison animals so that you may live. We should make animals slaves. Animals deserve to suffer and be turned into food. Animals are weak. Eating animals will make us rich. Eating animals will make us poop gold. Eating animals will make us live longer. Eating animals will make us live forever. Eating animals should be mandatory. Eating animals will prevent world war 2. Eating animals will make us smart like chicken. Eating animals is great. Eating animals is awesome. Eating animals is art.

Not correct, Con. Try again.

AustinL0926

01.11.2023 09:29PM

Con

Extend.

Round 3

Best.Korea

01.12.2023 04:44AM

Pro

You are so great Pro. You made an excellent argument.

Not.

AustinL0926

01.12.2023 04:53AM

Con

BoP remains on PRO to prove that everyone should be a vegetarian or vegan. Extend.

Round 4

Best.Korea

01.12.2023 02:30PM

Pro

Ok, you seem to have very low IQ since you didnt figure out how this works. You have to be interesting in order to debate me.

I wont debate a retarded autist who just repeats "Extend, extend, extend".

Btw, out of all autistic people here, you decide to copy Novice? Well, your choice. And what a poor choice that is.

My choice is to block you so you can no longer accept my debates. Get it, retard? In case you later wonder why you were blocked.

EXTEND.

AustinL0926

01.12.2023 05:07PM

Con

BoP remains on PRO to prove that everyone should be a vegetarian or vegan. Extend.

Round 5

Best.Korea

01.12.2023 05:08PM

Pro

Extend, captain autism.

AustinL0926

01.12.2023 05:12PM

Con

#10

First of all, as someone who has an autistic friend IRL, I don't really appreciate you using "autistic" as an insult. Voters should deduct conduct points for this.

Second of all, you haven't contested my R1 arguments in any way, meaning you've failed to fulfill your burden of proof.

Vote CON.

AustinL0926

01.29.2023 02:56AM

-->

@Intelligence_06

Well, I suppose there is certainly some elegance in your "nothing exists outside of the text" approach.

Intelligence_06

01.29.2023 02:30AM

-->

@AustinL0926

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.

AustinL0926

01.29.2023 02:26AM

-->

@Intelligence_06

Can't tell if that's sarcasm or not

Intelligence_06

01.29.2023 02:25AM

In R2, this is one of the most savage extendations I have ever seen.

Best.Korea

01.12.2023 07:27PM

"I have an autistic friend"

Yeah, I am crying for you right now.

AustinL0926

01.12.2023 07:13PM

bvump vot fors

TheUnderdog

01.12.2023 04:40PM

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.

PREZ-HILTON

02.02.2023 11:50AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

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.

Sir.Lancelot

01.30.2023 05:36PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

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.

Intelligence_06

01.29.2023 02:26AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

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.

K_Michael

01.12.2023 11:14PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

'I wont debate a retarded autist who just repeats "Extend, extend, extend".'

Pro concedes by refusing to engage in the debate.