Cooked food is toxic.
Debate Rounds (3)
Cooked, food heated to an internal temperature of 115 degrees Fahrenheit or higher.
Cooked " 1.
to prepare (food) by the use of heat, as by boiling, baking, or roasting.
Toxic, "tox"ic (t!5;kR42;sĭk)
1. Of, relating to, or caused by a toxin or other poison: a toxic condition; toxic hepatitis.
2. Capable of causing injury or death, especially by chemical means; poisonous: toxic industrial waste." .
This is a factual resolution.
Pro will contend for the resolution.
Con against the resolution.
I accept. Arguments in the next round.
Warrant: "(2) Of, or pertaining to, a molecule (such as a protein or a nucleic acid) wherein its chemical structure is altered through chemical or physical means so that some of its original properties are lost or diminished. "
Impact: Food contains protein and thus denatured protein is different than unaltered protein.
Claim: Fats can become rancid through heat
"How fats go rancid
Fats can become rancid through oxidation, irradiation, enzymatic lipolysis, and heat" .
Impact: Fat can become rancid, thus is different.
Claim: Carbohydrates caramelize when heated enough.
Warrant: "When exposed to heat, sugar will at first melt into a thick syrup. As the temperature continues to rise, the sugar syrup changes color, from clear to light yellow to a progressively deepening brown. This browning process is called caramelization. " .
Impact: Cooked carbohydrates and carbohydrates that aren't cooked are different.
Claim: Cooking food lessens the amount of vitamin C.
Warrant: "Cooking vitamin C-rich foods or storing them for a long period of time can reduce the vitamin C content." 
Impact: Cooked foods with vitamin C are less healthy than raw.
Claim: Rancid oils are detrimental to human health.
Warrant: " So what's wrong with eating rancid oils?
"There are at least two," says lipid specialist and University of Massachusetts professor Eric Decker. "One is that they lose their vitamins, but they also can develop potentially toxic compounds" that have been linked to advanced aging, neurological disorders, heart disease and cancer." 
Impact: Rancid oils are unhealthy thus its likely that all rancid fats are unhealthy. If all rancid fats are unhealthy, its likely that denatured proteins, and caramelized carbohydrates are unhealthy.
Claim: Most Americans are chronically dehydrated.
Warrant: "75% of Americans May Suffer From Chronic Dehydration, According to Doctors" .
Impact: Americans aren't getting enough water, cooked food may be the cause.
Claim: Cooked foods have less water content
Impact: Cooked foods have insufficient water content thus leading to chronic dehydration.
Claim: Meat cooked high enough contains heterocyclic amines, a carcinogen.
Warrant: "Heterocyclic amines (HCAs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are chemicals formed when muscle meat, including beef, pork, fish, or poultry, is cooked using high-temperature methods" .
Impact: Carcinogens qualify as toxic. Thus cooked meat is toxic.
Thank you for your arguments
Okay, this debate is about if cooked food is toxic meaning if cooked food is poisonous. I will be taking Con that cooked food is not toxic or poison. If I fill the BOP which is shared, I win the debate. If my opponent has filled the BOP, he wins. This debate is about whether or not cooked food is poisonous or not, just not healthy, which is a disadvantage for Pro because he has to explain why cooked food is poisonous when I have to say cooked food is not poisonous.
Contention 1: Boiling or Cooking makes bacteria go away.
Okay, my first argument is that boiling or cooking food makes bacteria go away.
It is simple. Bacteria usually lives in the right temperature. However if we boil the water or possible anything or cook food, the bacteria or bad substances that might have been in the food may disappear and die because of the high change of temperature. Because we boil this bacteria or cook it, and also the heat temperature, bacteria will die from this.
Contention 2: Cooked food has less harms than raw food.
Okay, this is simple. Cooked food has less harms than raw food.
Okay, raw food is not cooked meaning you do not heat or warmth your food. This means no fire to cook meat, rice, or anything. Do you think this will be good or cooked food, with cooked meat, fish, and rice. What do you think will taste better and healthier?
Thank you. My rebuttals will be in the next round.
1. Extermination of all bacteria
How many bacteria do you think are on your keyboard right now? Ten, one hundred, five hundred? "Researchers have discovered that computer keyboards contained 7,500 bacteria per swab - much more than an average toilet seat, which has 5,400." .
With thousands of bacteria per swab on your keyboard it doesn't make much sense to worry too much about the bacteria in your food. The germ theory is a fraud. . Instead, humans should worry about destroying the nutrition and dehydrating food until it is toxic via heating.
Taste is irrelevant to the resolution. The resolution is about health not taste. Anti-freeze tastes sweet, yet its a known toxin.
"Ethylene glycol is the ingredient that makes antifreeze tasty. Though colorless and odorless, the syrupy alcohol derivative"which is excellent at lowering the freezing points of vital engine fluids"has a sweet taste that jibes well with soda, juice, and other sugary beverages. " .
As for eating raw meat, Pro contends that meat shouldn't be eaten at all. All necessary nutrients can be gained from a raw vegan diet. B-12 can be gained from bacteria on raw food, humans only need about 56g of protein a day which is about 10% calories of the macronutrient protein. All three Omega-3s can be gained from a combination of flaxseeds, seaweed, and microalgae. Calcium is found in leafy greens.
Meat contains high amount of fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal protein which are detrimental to human health. Most haven't heard of why consuming animal protein is a bad idea. Consuming animal protein raises IGF-1, insulin like growth factor one. An increase in IGF-1 levels increase chances for cancer. "For years we didn"t know why eating a plant-based diet appeared to so dramatically improve cancer defenses within just a matter of weeks. But researchers recently figured it out: eating healthy lowers the level of the cancer promoting growth hormone IGF-1.".
Thanks for the debate, Cooked food is toxic vote Pro.
Thank you for your arguments. I will go onto my arguments, and rebuttals.
BOP is on both of us, Pro says nothing about framework. The debate is about the poison of cooked food, not bad things about cooked food.
I will go onto the round two rebuttals.
1. Fats can become rancid through heat.
Rebuttal: My rebuttal is that even though cooked food becomes rancid, this does not mean that cooked food is poisonous, by being rancid. Also not all foods are rancid.
2. Carbohydrates caramelize when heated enough.
Rebuttal: My rebuttal is like the first, however, it is that this is not about posionous.
3. Cooked food lessens vitamin C
Rebuttals: Again, does not meet the resolution
4. Cooked food has less water content
Rebuttal: Not meeting resolution.
Pro does not have any of his arguments related to the resolution. The resolution is about if cooked food is poisonous not bad for your health.
1. Bacteria is very important. With bacteria in you, you can get cancer, however if the cooked foods have less vitamin C does not mean it is poisonous.
2. My other argument is not about taste. It is about cooked food is better than raw food. Pro misses my argument about that raw food can be bad for you, like raw meat or fish.
I rebut all of Pro's arguments, and they mistake the resolution, and not about toxic. Pro can't rebut my arguments, making them dropped.
Vote for Con.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 11 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - This goes to Pro due to the fact that Con incorrectly stated that bacteria can cause cancer which is wrong. Cancer is caused by UVC ultraviolet light waves and various other waves of the electromagnetic spectrum. Sources - This goes to con. Both sources were very good in R2 but in R3, Pro resorted to youtube videos and newspapers (ibtimes). Whilst, it is true that con did not use sources in the final round, this was because they weren't necessary. The sources in Pro's R3 were necessary and were not sufficient based on their low credibility. Arguments - Well this point is difficult to judge. Hardly any of the arguments presented by both sides actually impacted upon the resolution. The only problem that I had was that Con's only argument that had any relevance to the resolution was refuted by Pro with evidence from a youtube video. This is not adequate and therefore Con wins this. Con correctly pointed out that Pro's arguments were irrelevant to the resolution. So I vote Con.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.