The Instigator
DebatorPro
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
mrpilotgamer
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Bacon is a bad food

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
mrpilotgamer
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/17/2015 Category: Funny
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 874 times Debate No: 68480
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

DebatorPro

Pro

Bacon is a bad food.
Rules:
No forfeiting
No trolling
No plagiarizing

Break any rules and you automatically lose all seven points.
mrpilotgamer

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
DebatorPro

Pro

Bacon is a bad food.
I would like to clarify at the beginning I am talking about real bacon, not fake bacon, or turkey bacon or any other variations. Simply real pig bacon.
Bacon is 68% fat and contains 30 mg of cholesterol (for the average strip).
It has been linked to increasing chances of heart disease and heart failure as well as high blood pressure.
It has 190 mg of sodium.
It has also been linked to lower sperm counts in men.

Overall the consumption of bacon has proven damaging to our bodies and thus is a bad food.

If this wasn't enough, its even banned from certain religions. There are several religions that ban the eating of pork and bacon is of coarse pork. That should be a good sign that despite its delicious taste, it is a bad food.
mrpilotgamer

Con

most of my information will come from here:http://authoritynutrition.com...

Rebuttals:

"Bacon is 68% fat and contains 30 mg of cholesterol (for the average strip)."

yes. but 50% of bacon is monounsaturated and a large part of those is Alec acid. This is the same fatty acid that olive oil is praised for and generally considered "heart-healthy" (1).

"It has been linked to increasing chances of heart disease and heart failure as well as high blood pressure.
It has 190 mg of sodium."

as said before, the 50% is good, and good for heart health.

also, There are several studies showing that bacon is linked to cancer and heart disease, but all of them are so-called epidemiological studies, which can not prove causation.

"If this wasn't enough, its even banned from certain religions. There are several religions that ban the eating of pork and bacon is of coarse pork. That should be a good sign that despite its delicious taste, it is a bad food."

I don't think a religions opinion of food should have anything to do with the facts.

opening arguments:

1: Meat tends to be very nutritious and bacon is no exception. A typical 100g portion of cooked bacon contains (5):

37 grams of high quality animal protein.
Lots of vitamins B1, B2, B3, B5, B6 and B12.
89% of the RDA for Selenium.
53% of the RDA for Phosphorus.
Decent amounts of the minerals iron, magnesium, zinc and potassium.

2: Now that we know saturated fat, cholesterol and normal amounts of sodium are usually nothing to worry about, this leaves us with the nitrates. Apparently, some studies conducted by some scientists a long time ago linked nitrates with cancer. However, these studies have since been refuted.

Nitrates aren"t some artificial compounds unique to bacon. Our bodies are loaded with them and the biggest dietary source is vegetables. Even our saliva contains massive amounts of them. These are compounds that are natural parts of human bodily processes.

There is some concern that during high heat cooking, the nitrates can form compounds called nitrosamines, which are known carcinogens. However, vitamin c is now frequently added to the curing process, which effectively reduces the nitrosamine content.

The harmful effects of nitrosamines are outweighed by potential benefits, but dietary nitrates may also be converted to Nitric Oxide, associated with improved immune function and cardiovascular health.
Debate Round No. 2
DebatorPro

Pro

" 50% of bacon is monounsaturated and a large part of those is Alec acid"
Alec acid isn't actually a thing. Its called oleic acid. Either this is a horrible mistype, or you where attempting to avoid plagiarizing as this is a direct quote from the website you sourced.

"Meat tends to be very nutritious and bacon is no exception. A typical 100g portion of cooked bacon contains (5):
"
Another direct quote violating the plagiarizing rule.

"Now that we know saturated fat, cholesterol and normal amounts of sodium are usually nothing to worry about, this leaves us with the nitrates. Apparently, some studies conducted by some scientists a long time ago linked nitrates with cancer. However, these studies have since been refuted (9).Nitrates aren"t some artificial compounds unique to bacon. Our bodies are loaded with them and the biggest dietary source is vegetables."

This is another direct plagiarizing of the website you sourced.

Listen I just found three violations of the No plagiarizing rule that I stated in the opening round. By accepting this debate you accepted that rule. You violated that rule and (as the first round clearly says), that results in an automatic seven point loss. I read the article and you basically just copy pasted the whole thing. Sorry buddy, but no matter how strong you argument is you violated the rules and so lose.

Thank you anyway
Vote Pro
mrpilotgamer

Con

i did not plagiarize, as the definition of of plagiarism is: the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own. i did not pass it as my own as i said most of my information would come from this website.

none of my info is wrong because i used a website's information. that does not make sense. we all use information from someone else. i bet you looked at some else's research to clarify your own idea of bacon. and if you did, by your idea, you plagiarized.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Infinity406 2 years ago
Infinity406
Con didn't plagiarize. Were you trying to get out of the debate, or did you not thoroughly read what he had typed?
Posted by jsgolfer 2 years ago
jsgolfer
Con did not plagiarize. He didn't cite his data using the format required in an academic paper, but he did cite his arguments by providing the link to which he got his information and then used quotes to show when he was using direct quotes. That's not plagiarism.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
bacon is bad... Water is bad if you drink enough
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by warren42 2 years ago
warren42
DebatorPromrpilotgamerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments Con because they were stronger and more effective. Sources Con because Pro didn't use any. Conduct Con because Pro says Con plagiarized, but Con didn't plagiarism is taking credit for someone else's work, and in Con's opening statement, they gave credit where it was due. Pro doesn't understand what plagiarism is.
Vote Placed by o0jeannie0o 2 years ago
o0jeannie0o
DebatorPromrpilotgamerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Quoting is "ok" and is not plagiarizing with sources. The difference is the entire argument is quoted not paraphrased, a technicality but points to pro. Points to con as his arguments where not refuted, you cant just say you lose and expect voters to care about your terrible rules. With a debate about "facts" you have to expect quotes from dietary sources.
Vote Placed by Rubikx 2 years ago
Rubikx
DebatorPromrpilotgamerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with Pro, Con just copied an entire article from a website. They didn't actually construct their own argument.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
DebatorPromrpilotgamerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: con proved that bacon had more benefits than negative effects. Pro should have stressed on the fact that bacon could lead to heart attacks with its cholesterol instead of insisting and not reading con's arguments, claiming falsely of plagiarism.