Instigator / Pro

FishChaser

1553

rating

debates

55.19%

won

Topic

#4672

Humans can eat raw meat

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 6 votes and with 22 points ahead, the winner is...

FishChaser

Tags

meat

Parameters

Publication date: 07.03.2023 04:09PM
Last updated date: 07.17.2023 08:59PM
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

Contender / Con

Best.Korea

1264

rating

363

debates

39.81%

won

Description

No information

Round 1

FishChaser

07.03.2023 06:05PM

Pro

Humans can put raw meat in their mouth and swallow it.

There are numerous dishes which include raw meat such as sashimi, steak tartare and Kitfo.

8 Best Raw Beef Dishes (Proven Tips for Eating Them Safely) (carnivorestyle.com)

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.

Best.Korea

07.03.2023 06:17PM

Con

Humans can put raw meat in their mouth and swallow it.

Should they? I would say no.

Meat is expensive and harmful for health.

Round 2

FishChaser

07.03.2023 08:03PM

Pro

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?

Best.Korea

07.03.2023 08:25PM

Con

Meat is expensive? Only if you're a poor loser.

Well, I happen to be a poor loser.

Meat is harmful for health? In what quantity and when your quality standards are what?

Well, even if we ignore that we are harming animals who have to get killed, it still stands that vegans live longer. Dont you want to live longer?

Vegans are also often skinny and sexy. Meat eaters are fat.

Round 3

FishChaser

07.03.2023 08:47PM

Pro

Con discredits himself by admitting he is poor. Poor people are lazy and stupid.

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.

Best.Korea

07.03.2023 08:59PM

Con

that doesn't change the fact that humans can eat meat and even raw meat

Well, yeah, thats a fact.

DavidAZ

07.06.2023 06:51PM

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 did not eat Korea. He chewed him up and spit him out!

RationalMadman

07.06.2023 06:38PM

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:

Round 3 is an outright concession, don't report my vote unless Best Korea denies he conceded it.

Barney

07.04.2023 08:04PM

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:

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.

Slainte

07.04.2023 04:39AM

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:

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

Bella3sp

07.04.2023 03:23AM

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 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.

Intelligence_06

07.04.2023 02:55AM

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:

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.