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

Chocolate is good.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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: 6/6/2016 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,406 times Debate No: 92440
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




Chocolate tastes good, looks good, and overall is the best type of candy there is that you can eat.


Chocolate tastes bad, looks bad, and overall is the worst type of candy that you can eat.
Debate Round No. 1


First of all, chocolate tastes good. But not only that, chocolates have some health benefits.
According to, it reduces stroke risks, it boosts heart health, it may fight diabetes, it protects your skin, it can quiet coughs, it improves blood flow, and it improves vision.
In addition to it giving health benefits, it can give a delicious, savory flavor into your mouth. There are many different types of chocolate, if you don't like one too!
Overall, chocolates are great!


Chocolate is not a healthy food no matter how my opponent says it. To begin with, I will refute my opponent's points, then go on to state my counterexample. He says that, "Chocolates have some health benefits." This is true, however there are also major downsides that he has failed to notice. Chocolate can also contribute to lower bone density, cause headaches with migraine sufferers, and it's high in fat, sugar, and calories. Therefore, you should not eat chocolate just because it will improve your health, there are also huge consequences that come with any type of junk food or candy, like chocolate.
My opponent also says that "There are many different types of chocolate, if you don't like one too!" This shows that he believes all types of chocolates have the same health benefits, however I disagree because not all chocolates are created equally. The class of ingredients that makes chocolate are called flavanoids. Milk chocolate does not have any many flavanoids as dark chocolate, and white chocolate doesn't have any at all! Therefore, not all chocolates have the same health benefits.

Now, I will present my counter example, vanilla. Vanilla has numerous antioxidants, has anti-inflammation abilities, and can lower cholesterol. In addition, it can also calm stomach pains, reduce hunger pangs, and relieve stress. On top of that, vanilla is also not as fattening and doesn't have as many unhealthy additions as chocolate. Eating vanilla would give you the same health benefits that chocolate also brings, but it also doesn't have the downsides that chocolate has.

In conclusion, chocolate should not be praised for its numerous health benefits, because it also has major unhealthy characteristics, and because vanilla is another better alternative to chocolate.
Debate Round No. 2


My opponent says that chocolate is not a healthy food no matter what. I believe that this argument may be correct, but it still gives benefits. Chocolate, like any other food, is bad if you have to much. However, this does not mean that it is bad. For example, if you have too much water, it would be bad. Though that may be true, water is still good for you. About the same goes for chocolate. Chocolate may not be a food you want to eat too much, however it does give benefits. Chocolate is still good. In addition, she says that chocolate can cause headaches, however, according to, coffee can do the same. Yet people still drink it! Thus, chocolate is still something good you can enjoy, like coffee!

My opponent then says then says that not all chocolates have the same health benefits. Though this may be true, the chocolates each do have at least one thing. White chocolate, for example, can give calcium, while milk chocolate can give a medium or a high level of cacao.

She then gives a counter example, which doesn't really relate to the topic. Vanilla and chocolate are both good, and we are arguing about how chocolate is good! She believes that chocolate is not good, and I believe it is. This is not chocolate vs vanilla. Thus, this counter example is useless.

In conclusion, chocolate does give health benefits.


First and foremost, my opponent says that I stated "chocolate is not a healthy food no matter what." However, this rebuttal is false because in my first speech I clearly stated, "He says that, 'Chocolates have some health benefits.' This is true..." This shows that I do agree that chocolate does have health benefits. Therefore, his first rebuttal is false.

Secondly, he says that white chocolate can give calcium and milk chocolate has a high or medium level of cacao. I disagree with his white chocolate rebuttal because milk or other dairy products could just as easily give calcium without other downsides chocolate brings. As you can see, white chocolate is one type of chocolate that should not be praised, as its benefits can be achieved with healthier means. In addition, I also disagree with his milk chocolate argument, because he does not clearly explain what cacao is and how cacao affects the body. Therefore, his rebuttal is invalid.

In my opponent's third rebuttal, he mentions how a counter example is irrelevant to the topic at hand. However, I disagree, my counterexample is valid and acceptable. The opposition's job is to knock down all of the proposition's arguments; the opposition is not arguing the opposite of the proposition.

To sum up, my opponent's rebuttals are invalid, and you should vote for the Con/Opposition.
Debate Round No. 3


First and foremost, my opponent says that my rebuttal is false. This is an unnecessary argument because I just shortened what my opponent said. She begins with "Chocolate is not a healthy food no matter how my opponent says it," in round 2. I then said in my rebuttal that she said that chocolate is not a healthy food no matter what. This is literally the same meaning. In addition, this has nothing to do with the topic! Overall, this rebuttal is clearly useless.

My opponent then says that milk or other dairy products could just as easily give calcium without other downsides chocolate brings. This may be true, however this does not bring down the fact that the two chocolates still give benefits!

Lastly, my opponent says that her counterexample is valid and acceptable. As I said before, her vanilla example does not bring down the fact that chocolate is still good! Both are good and both give benefits. This is debate is not about one is better than the other.


To start off with, I will refute my opponent's first argument. When I said chocolate should not be considered a healthy food, I meant this as chocolate has too many major unhealthy conditions that outweigh the healthy benefits, so it should not be called a healthy food. I believe that there are healthy parts of chocolate, do not misinterpret my words, but there are still too many downsides.

Although the milk chocolate does have a benefit, it is still not the best option. You also did not refute my milk chocolate point, so your statement, "the two chocolates still give benefits," is false.

As I have stated before, the opposition's (Con's) job is to refute everything that proposition says. Obviously, my counter example proves that chocolate is not good because there are other, healthier, and better options to chocolate.
Debate Round No. 4


My opponent says that chocolates has too many major unhealthy conditions that outweigh the healthy benefits. I disagree, because according to, the website says that chocolate is not bad for your health. Because this is clearly stated, this means that they do more good that harm. Chocolate is good and gives benefits.

After, my opponent says that I didn't refute her milk chocolate point. This is false, because I said that milk does give benefits- but so does the two chocolates! This means that she just gave another thing that gave some same health benefits. The two chocolates are still.. good!

Lastly, my opponent says that there are better and healthier options to chocolate. This may be true, but it DOESN'T PROVE THAT CHOCOLATE IS BAD! Water is good for you, and apples are good for you. If I was talking about how water is good, and you put in a counterexample that apples are good, this doesn't mean that water is bad! This is what you are saying right now about chocolate. You are saying that milk is also good for you, but that doesn't mean that chocolate is bad. Your arguments are useless, and I have rebutted all of them. Overall, chocolate is great.

Vote for the proposition side.


First off, my opponent looks at a possibly biased source to defend his argument, instead of looking and comparing the benefits and unhealthy consequences of chocolate. This shows that his rebuttal is invalid because he did not focus on the real evidence on hand, which is the pros and cons of chocolate.

I don't understand your second rebuttal. You mention that you've stated, "milk does give benefits," but I cannot find where you have said this throughout our debate.

In response to your third rebuttal, I am saying that there are other better alternatives to chocolate, so therefore chocolate is not good because it is not the best option of food to choose from. For example. vanilla is a healthier and more beneficial food so chocolate is not a good option in comparison.

As you can see, I have clearly won this debate because I have rebutted many of my opponent's points, and I have come up with a counterexample to refute his points. Please vote the the Opposition (Con).
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by fire_wings 2 years ago
Just to say, my vote was from the Voter's Team (Not Voter's Union, you need to go more right to get to the Voter's Team)
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: Lyksina// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Pro had better sources and arguments.

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD. The voter merely restates 2 of their point allocations and explains none of them.
Posted by fire_wings 2 years ago
RFD Part 2


With only that, the winner is Pro. He defended his first argument, and he was the only one to provide offense, so Pro wins arguments. I could have gave Pro sources too, but nah, it is a BS place. Pro defends her only argument, and says the counterplan is useless, and persuaded me.


Never say, "this is true, but..." Say, "My opponent is false. There are so many bad...". It sounds like a concession, which makes your arguments credibility fall.

To CON. Always make offense. BoP is on Pro if he is challenging the status quo, which he isn't doing.

Vote Pro/
Posted by fire_wings 2 years ago
RFD Part 1. (I apoligize for doing this backward.)

I will make my RFD in the comments.

First of all, CON gives ZERO offense. Therefore, even if Pro wins in a very weak claim, he wins the debate, because Con did not make any arguments, only a counterplan, when the BoP is shared. I will divide it into different parts.


Pro says that chocolate has many good things, and can help your health. Con rebuts, by saying, "this is true, but..." NEVER SAY THIS IN A DEBATE. Say, "My opponent is clearly wrong. There are much more bad things about chocolate." It sounded like a concession, though it wasn't. Con says that there are many bad things about chocolate, but this is a bare asserition, there are no sources.

Pro makes a good defense, short and concise. He says that if you eat chocolate a lot, it will become worse, but then he says that is for almost every food. He says that coffee has the same weaknesses as chocolate, but then people still drink it too. And Con, you just read the first part, and you SAID the exact same thing. Pro says that she didn't read the end. Con says there are downsides, so it is not a healthy food. Pro gives a SOURCE (yipee! A source! Not a bare assertion!) to prove that chocolate is good. Con says it is biased, but does not give evidence. This argument goes to Pro.


This is the only think Con has. Con says that we can eat vanilla, it has the same health effects, but it doesn't have bad effects. Pro says it is off-topic, and the resolution is not chocolate v.s. vanilla, only if chocolate is good. Con says she thinks it is acceptable. She doesn't persuade the voter's. I got persuaded by Pro because the resolution is wrong. Con says that her job is too refute the Pro side, when she couldn't, and she didn't mention the BoP.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.