The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Chocolate is beneficial to your health

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/23/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 548 times Debate No: 80024
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)





Round one only for acceptance

2: No obscene comments or behavior

3: Take debate seriously

Failure to abide by these rules will result in a 7 point forfeiture towards the role

Good Luck :D


Accepted. Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1



Cholalate can help protect your body against cancer.

(2) Dark chocoate, with less added sugar, may help stabalize blood sugar levels and reduce the risk of obesity.

(3) Chocolate can make you thinner.


Claim 1:
In the website ""research suggest that the phytochemicals in cocoa may help protect against cancer. For example, "" states that the phytochemical Theaflavin that is contained in cocoa inhibits cell migration and invasiveness. It states,

"Epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) is a process where cancerous cells lose adherin proteins and gain metastatic potential and the ability to spread (this phenomena is not isolated to oral cancers[135]) which is associated with increased Vimentin[136] and later stages associated with increased levels of Metalloproteinases (MMPs) that break down the extracellular matrix (ECM) and facilitate tumor metastasis.[137]"

"Black tea extract (2.63% Theaflavin Digallate, catechins, and 10.46% gallic acid) in SCC-4 oral cancer cells inhibited cell migration and invasiveness in a concentration-dependent manner and prevented SCC-4 adhesion to the ECM, which precedes EMT.[138] Black tea was found to concentration-dependently reduce both Vimentin and MMP2 expression (as well as FAK and p-Src) and upregulate E-Cadherin in concentrations below 40ug/mL, and 20ug/mL effectively abolished the PMA-induced induction of u-PA and MMP9.[138]"

What this quote means is that the Theaflavin in cocoa precede EMT, which is a process where cancerous cells lose adherin proteins and gain metastatic potential and the ability to spread.

Claim 2: Diabetes occurs when your blood glucose levels are consistently high, and can cause many problems in your body. In the website "" It states, "As long as you choose flavonoid-rich dark chocolate, the sweet treat could have a number of beneficial effects on health, including lowering your blood pressure and your risk for heart disease. The beneficial compounds in dark chocolate may also help minimize your diabetes risk, according to a study published in "The Journal of Nutrition" in February 2014."

What this citation means is that the rich flavored dark chocolate that you crave as a delicious snack may havea number of beneficial effects on health, including lowering your blood pressure and your risk of heart disease. Cocoa is high in antioxidents called flavanols, which is important because antioxidants play a role in opening up blood vessels, which reduces blood pressure.

Claim 3: The website, "" states that compounds in chocolate alter metabolism reducing the fraction of calories that turn to fat. This means that, because of eating chocolate, it can change your metabolism which results in the reduction of calories that turn to fat, which is was chocolate is infamously known for.

Although, the only beneficial chocolate researched that this alter in metabolism occurs only in dark chocolate that has 60 to 70 percent cocoa. This is because too little cocoa may influence the change in metabolism which will make you gain more fat. Too less cocoa is just plain unappetizing.

I await for my opponents debate. Good luck!








I'll start with my argument before responding to my opponent's.

O1) The resolution is "Chocolate is beneficial to your health". This implies a weighing debate, where Pro advocates for why chocolate is, on balance, better for health than harmful. This means that whichever side advocates for the largest impact wins the round.

O2) Because of the lack of specificity in "Chocolate" in the resolution, attempts to narrow down an argument to a specific kind of chocolate is non-topical because obviously not all kinds of chocolate in existence are one specific type -- Pro needs to advocate that generic chocolate is beneficial, while I need to argue that generic chocolate is harmful.

It is common knowledge that women crave chocolate around or during the time of their period. It's a widely accepted fact. But why is this true? This is true because when someone takes a bite out of a piece of chocolate, it releases certain endorphins to try to right the imbalance of mental hormones in a woman's body.[1][2] But this balance is something that the woman's body is not prepared to have during this period of time. This skewing of of the females level of hormones is able to cause mood swings.[1] Mood swings are widely acknowledged as a cause for depression, which is also widely accepted as a reason why people commit suicide.[3]

Thus, through the linkage of evidence, we can conclude that chocolate can lead to increasing rates of suicide. And suicide is the ultimate impact in today's debate because:

a) Death through suicide is going to outweigh any kind of disease you can get from not eating enough chocolate. You can take medicine and get treatment for being sick. You can't take a pill that cures a bullet to the brain. Suicide outweighs on severity.
b) Death through suicide outweighs any kind of cancer or disease because there's at least a chance to survive diseases like that. Kimotherapy and radiation therapy offer chances and opportunities for cancer patients to beat the disease. You can't beat a bullet to the head. Suicide outweighs on a scale of certainty.
c) Death outweighs any kind of health benefits as an apriori side constraint. It doesn't matter how much better my metabolism becomes if I'm dead. This means that the negative harms come first.

Now let's look at his case. Group his arguments together.

The problem with his case is that he advocates for very specific kinds of chocolate to link to his benefits: the chocolates with high levels for Theoflavin and dark chocolate that has somewhere between 60-70% cocoa isn't exactly your run-of-the-mill chocolate bar. This has two implications on the debate at hand:

1) You prefer my arguments as my arguments link to all chocolate, whereas his arguments only link to very specific kinds of chocolate.
2) You don't evaluate his impacts because they're overstated in impact: not everyone who picks up a chocolate bar will pick up these kinds of chocolate, meaning that not everyone will receive these health benefits. Everyone who picks up a chocolate bar, however, links into my arguments as my arguments aren't specific to a certain kind of chocolate. My impacts are more reliable and accurate.

But to respond to his first and second arguments specifically:

His impact here is never actually going to be true. Even if he's showing that this Theoflavin helps fight cancer and that flavonoid-rich chocolate reduces diabetes rates and heart disease rates, his own source admits that "some of the most popular processing techniques have been shown to strip chocolate of up to 90 percent of its healthy phytochemicals, ..." meaning that the chocolate on the market today doesn't actually have the right balance of chemicals to give him his desired results. Just picking up a Hershey's bar from the grocery store and eating it doesn't make you less likely to get cancer or less likely to have a heart attack.

This makes the debate super easy to evaluate:

1) You're preferring death as the ultimate impact in today's debate. I'm the only one linking their impacts into death by showing that chocolate leads to increased rates of suicide.
2) You're preferring my arguments over his because they're more likely to happen. His impacts rely on very specific kinds of chocolate that aren't available currently, whereas any generic bar of chocolate links into my harms.
3) His impacts are overstated and unlikely to actually happen: the chemicals needed for his arguments to be true just aren't found in the everyday chocolate bar. Whereas any chocolate bar links into my harms.


[1] -
[2] -
[3] -
Debate Round No. 2


I completely agree what the contender is trying to say. This debate was a very healthy debate. I thank my opponent for accepting, and I forfeit the following rounds. Thank you for giving me this wonderful experience for my first debate!


Lol, okay then. Thanks for debating me.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Lee001 1 year ago
Women crave chocolate whilst on their that a fact? lol
Posted by Romanii 1 year ago
Leave it to Zaradi to find a way to run Deleuze on a debate about chocolate
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ColeTrain 1 year ago
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: Gracious concession by Pro, arguments obviously flow to Con because of legitimacy and Pro's concession.