The Instigator
Tommy.leadbetter
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
birdlandmemories
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Meat eaters

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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/27/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 911 times Debate No: 59636
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)

 

Tommy.leadbetter

Pro

Those who eat meat must be either more ignorant or more selfish and unkind than vegans.
birdlandmemories

Con

You're supposed to be arguing in favor of meat eaters, but your first round argument is against meat eaters.
Debate Round No. 1
Tommy.leadbetter

Pro

No I am arguing that my statement is correct. My statement is that meat eaters are 'more ignorant' or 'more selfish and unkind' than meat eaters. Why is that in favor of meat eaters? If you think there is a problem with the way I set up the debate, would it not be better to comment rather than accept my challenge? Do you even disagree with my statement or did you misunderstand it?
birdlandmemories

Con

My opponent continues to argue in favor of the wrong stance. We should redo this debate, so you are con and I am pro. Because from the looks of it, people will think you are pro meat eaters, and I'm con.

No votes on this debate please.
Debate Round No. 2
Tommy.leadbetter

Pro

Tommy.leadbetter forfeited this round.
birdlandmemories

Con

No votes please.
Debate Round No. 3
Tommy.leadbetter

Pro

Tommy.leadbetter forfeited this round.
birdlandmemories

Con

No votes please.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DarthKirones 2 years ago
DarthKirones
...What?
Posted by evangambit 2 years ago
evangambit
Sorry "second post" not "second comment". Inaccuracy of my word choice aside, I look forward to your assessment of my comment :)
Posted by evangambit 2 years ago
evangambit
"It worries me the previous 2 commenters have failed to see that logic."

I applaud your request to restart the debate. Whether it is important to you or not, I know view your character as above average. That being said, I'm afraid I'm going to have to defend this affront on my honor ;).

First, semantically, "logic" really only operates in the background regarding our observations and theories about the universe. "Logic" is always based on certain assumptions and people generally aren't that bad at logic (certainly the relatively simple logic we were both using). A far more reasonable word is "rational" or "rationality".

You made an assumption that "Meat Eaters" as a debate topic/title necessitated that a "pro" position supported their position. This was certainly rational -- I would have made the same assumption given the same information (given what I know of the society in which a user likely to use this site grew up). However, when given additional information -- indeed, a nearly indisputable fact -- that contradicted your theory, you disregarded it. Indeed you mention this in your response. Yet, despite such a glaring and substantial data-point, you refused to shift your stance in your next post. This was neither rational nor logical. When given the same data I came to the correct conclusion (that is, what the intents of Pro were).

Now you are, in my humble opinion, absolutely correct in saying that, WITHOUT the evidence of the first post, your second comment was "correct" rationally. That being said, I'd be hesitant to say that you were correct to make it in the first place. Given the ambiguity of the title, a comment first might have been more advisable (though, obviously, hindsight is 20/20)
Posted by birdlandmemories 2 years ago
birdlandmemories
Aerogant, either you get off this debate, or troll somewhere else, as you are making no sense at all.

I said either, and it is not a deep down insult. What is an insult is you trying to give me a bad rep. Also, if we want to get further into the topic of insults, let's look at your first post on this debate.

More ad hom by you. Also, as you seem to not understand, meat eaters means people who eat meat. I do not understand why it is so hard for you to comprehend that. If he wanted to argue that meat eaters are violent, he would've created a debate with the topic that says, "Meat eaters are violent and rude". The topic of this debate was vague.

You have made no sense with your argument, and need to organize what you type better.
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
Aerogant
Meat Eaters is an ambiguous phrase - if I saw a book titled this, I would think of it as either pro-meat, or referring to pro-meat. You can stop rationalizing your binary lens now, as anyone can see that your perception is one-dimensional in this case.

The fact that you have to insult me by calling me a troll, tells everyone that you are the one that stooped so low as to condescend me because you know deep down that you are wrong and have been critically re-evaluated by someone that takes these discussions seriously, while still understanding the joys of humor.

You're the one that is illiterate in this case, my friend. Look again, and you will see that your brain is lack luster this time around, as the Pro clearly made a title that was meant for "referring to meat eaters", as to say they are not a meat eater; and their statement which they made clearly determines that they are not a meat eater, but believe that meat eaters are ignorant and violent (which couldn't be any more wrong, so nice to know that both the Pro and the Con are delusional.)
Posted by birdlandmemories 2 years ago
birdlandmemories
Aerogant, for looking at your previous debates, you are either

1: A troll
or
2: Someone with little understanding

Either way, it is a bit funny you would be talking about ideas, and correct reasoning.
Posted by birdlandmemories 2 years ago
birdlandmemories
Well look at the name of the debate topic, it is called Meat Eaters, and he took the Pro stance, which means he is arguing in favor of the resolution. His opening argument however contradicts his stance on the resolution.

That is the reasoning of this debate. It worries me the previous 2 commenters have failed to see that logic. And also, I asked for this debate to be restarted so he would choose the correct stance, which therefore means I do not want to delay anything, I merely want do have a proper debate.
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
Aerogant
Pro is arguing the statement based on pro-meat and anti-meat - Pro is not arguing whether they are pro-meat or anti-meat, because by their statement that this debate is based upon, they are pro statement and anti-meat.

Is is that hard to understand such a simple bit of context people? This worries me if this site is even legitimately accurate for ideas, not just some place for a bunch of people that don't know reality from their rear.
Posted by birdlandmemories 2 years ago
birdlandmemories
If his position was "Clear", why would he mix up the stances in this debate?
Posted by evangambit 2 years ago
evangambit
This is ridiculous. Pro's position was clear, Con is deliberately trying to make this debate unproductive.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
Tommy.leadbetterbirdlandmemoriesTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: ff but con's request
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
Tommy.leadbetterbirdlandmemoriesTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: As per the request of the debaters, I'm leaving this null.