The Instigator
Jazzyn4
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
SkepticalDebatee
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

Is sugar bad for you?

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...
SkepticalDebatee
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/11/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,271 times Debate No: 54467
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (4)
Votes (4)

 

Jazzyn4

Pro

I think sugar is bad for you because it is unhealthy and causes heartattacks. It can also give you bad infections that will cause constipation and unbalanced bacteria. I think we all need to stop eating/ drinking a lot of sugar. We need to take care of ourselves and not unbalance the bacteria in our bodies. Someone died years ago because of high sugar rates. This isn't really a good debate but I just wanted to say how bad a lot of sugar can cause.
SkepticalDebatee

Con

I think sugar is good for you as it gives you the energy that you need to do activities. If you did not intake any sugars your cells wouldn't have energy.

While too much sugar is bad for you if you had none you would die. [1]

1. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...
Debate Round No. 1
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by ClaraBains 3 years ago
ClaraBains
It probably will (it's 18-5), but don't worry, at least you're honest! :^)
Posted by DeeAnn 3 years ago
DeeAnn
*Cringes* Sorry I voted on wrong side, hope this doesn't change the outcome of the debate :-(
Posted by mariegalbrae 3 years ago
mariegalbrae
I did a project on sugar once and it actually is really bad for you. It made me go off sugar. Natural sugar that you find in fruit or vegetables are usually fine. It's the added sugar that you have to be careful about.
Posted by Jazzyn4 3 years ago
Jazzyn4
Read mine carefully.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by DeeAnn 3 years ago
DeeAnn
Jazzyn4SkepticalDebateeTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Better arguments and sources.
Vote Placed by JMCika 3 years ago
JMCika
Jazzyn4SkepticalDebateeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: best arguments
Vote Placed by Cutiepuffle 3 years ago
Cutiepuffle
Jazzyn4SkepticalDebateeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Con's argument was much better, had better conduct and used a source.
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
lannan13
Jazzyn4SkepticalDebateeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con wins due to him supporting his arguments with a source. Though I would have like it if con would've elaborated on his you need sugar to live argument.