The Instigator
RainbowDash52
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Omniscient_Debater
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Peanut butter does not contain nuts.

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...
Omniscient_Debater
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/1/2016 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 852 times Debate No: 93265
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (1)

 

RainbowDash52

Pro

First round is acceptance.
Omniscient_Debater

Con

I gladly accept!
Debate Round No. 1
RainbowDash52

Pro

Peanuts are legumes, not nuts. [1] [2]

Peanut butter consist primarily of ground peanuts, which are not nuts. [3]

The other ingredients in peanut butter are not nuts either. For example, the ingredients listed for Jif peanut butter is:
"MADE FROM ROASTED PEANUTS AND SUGAR, CONTAINS 2% OR LESS OF: MOLASSES, FULLY HYDROGENATED VEGETABLE OILS (RAPESEED AND SOYBEAN), MONO AND DIGLYCERIDES, SALT." [4]

None of those ingredients are nuts. So it can be concluded that peanut butter does not contain nuts.

Sources:
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.peanut-institute.org...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://www.jif.com...
Omniscient_Debater

Con

Pro has the BoP, and *must* show that there are no instances of peanut butter containing nuts.

I can put some nuts on my peanut butter, and it would be a peanut butter product that contained nuts.

Once again, Pro must show that there is not a SINGLE INSTANCE of peanut butter containing nuts, and so far, has not done so.
Debate Round No. 2
RainbowDash52

Pro

Resolution Interpretation

Con interprets the resolution as: ALL peanut butter contains no nuts. I will argue that this interpretation is wrong.

Take the statement "grass is green". It is understood to mean "grass is generally green" and is therefor accepted as true. Saying "Grass is green" doesn't imply "There does not exist a non-green blade of grass" or "You cannot spray paint grass to be a color other than green". And by extension, "peanut butter does not contain nuts" means "peanut butter generally does not contain nuts" as opposed to my opponent's interpretation.

If I wanted to pull the same trick my opponent tried, I could argue that the resolution should be interpreted as "SOME peanut butter contains no nuts", in order to skew the debate in my favor, but I trust judges to go with the more balanced and fair interpretation I argued for.

Argument Extension

I proved that Jif peanut butter does not contain nuts, and my opponent dropped that argument. And since Jif peanut butter is the most popular peanut butter brand [1], it is an ideal representative of peanut butter in general, which shows that peanut butter generally does not contain nuts.

Although I do have BoP, it is unreasonable to expect me to show that every major brand of peanut butter does not contain nuts do to the 2000 character limit. On the other hand, if a major brand of peanut butter did contain nuts, all my opponent has to do to win is to post it and show that the ingredients include nuts. If my opponent doesn't give an example of a major brand of peanut butter containing nuts, then either A) it doesn't exist, or B) it exists, but he was too lazy to find and post it. Given that my opponent showed he is motivated to try to win in his previous argument, it can be assumed that if he doesn't show a major brand of peanut butter containing nuts, then it is because it doesn't exist.

Source
[1] http://www.ranker.com...
Omniscient_Debater

Con

"Con interprets the resolution as: ALL peanut butter contains no nuts. I will argue that this interpretation is wrong."

This is completely unfair of you. All terms of the debate must be discussed in the 1st round by the instigator, otherwise, they may be disregarded. It's far too late for you to change the debate.

"If I wanted to pull the same trick my opponent tried, I could argue that the resolution should be interpreted as "SOME peanut butter contains no nuts", in order to skew the debate in my favor, but I trust judges to go with the more balanced and fair interpretation I argued for."

Either way, the debate wasn't fair because of course peanuts are not nuts. You *did* skew it in your favor because if my argument doesn't count because it apparently wasn't what you were expecting, then what did you want me to debate? Peanuts are not legumes? This isn't a debate about peanuts, if that's what you mean, it's about peanut butter. If my opponent can be unfair and skew the debate in their favor, so can I.

"I proved that Jif peanut butter does not contain nuts, and my opponent dropped that argument. And since Jif peanut butter is the most popular peanut butter brand [1], it is an ideal representative of peanut butter in general, which shows that peanut butter generally does not contain nuts."

Once again, you never showed that in the resolution or the first round, so it isn't fair for you to tell me I *should* have interpreted in a specific way, and jif peanut butter is one brand. The resolution said nothing about jif peanut butter.

Also I put two almonds in a "jif peanut butter" and made it my profile pic, so now there officially IS a peanut butter that contains nuts.

It is unreasonable for me to show peanuts are not legumes.

So in short, you weren't fair either, you had the BoP, I proved you wrong, and you were too late to change my interpretation of the resolution.

The character limit is astoundingly short so...

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Omniscient_Debater 1 year ago
Omniscient_Debater
Ok I understand that last vote being reported, but this one? Come on.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: David_Debates// Mod action: NOT Removed<

4 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Pro leaves 3 key terms undefined in the debate: peanut butter, contain, and nuts. As Con points out in round 3, "This is completely unfair of you. All terms of the debate must be discussed in the 1st round by the instigator, otherwise, they may be disregarded. It's far too late for you to change the debate." Arguments: Pro attempts to show how one brand of peanut butter (Jif) does not contain nuts, but instead, contains legumes. However, Con reverses this upon Pro, pointing out that since Pro did not define any of his terms, thereby giving Pro the burden to "show that there are no instances of peanut butter containing nuts." As the rounds progressed, Pro was unable to meet that burden. In the end, therefore, arguments go to Con for sufficiently disproving Pro's undefined, unspecific case.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter sufficiently explains both arguments and conduct. With regards to the report, it is correct that undefined terms are not, in and of themselves, bad conduct. However, the voter appears to be making their decision based on the decision to define the terms in a later round, which concerns fairness. The decision to change the parameters of the debate appears to be what's at issue, and the voter does have discretion to award conduct on that basis.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: ThinkBig// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: The resolution is "Peanut butter does not contain nuts." Pro should have clearly defined the resolution and terms in the first round. Con showed that it is possible that there is peanut butter that DOES IN FACT contain nuts. Pro tried to to a bait and switch on the resolution (a violation of conduct) and thus conduct and arguments go to con.

[*Reason for removal*] While the voter sufficiently explains conduct, arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to establish how Con proved the resolution true, and not just assert that they managed to do so. This may require analysis of specific points made by both debaters, or an explanation of the BoP and how Con met it.
************************************************************************
Posted by RainbowDash52 1 year ago
RainbowDash52
@Omniscient_Debater This isn't about winning; it is about not letting people get away with insufficient votes. If I only cared about winning, I would have waited to report the vote after the voting period ended so thinkbig wouldn't be able to re-vote against me with a slightly better RFD.
Posted by Omniscient_Debater 1 year ago
Omniscient_Debater
@RainbowDash, I understand you wanted to win this debate, but that vote was definitely sufficient. He explained that you didn't define the terms in the 1st round, so I misinterpreted the resolution and therefore you don't get to manipulate the debate in your favor, which he felt was poor conduct. What did you want him to write?
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
It's not, by itself, sufficient analysis of the given argument. The analysis of how Pro defined the resolution is sufficient, but I'm realizing on second glance that that alone would only be enough to justify conduct. If you report it, I'll remove it.
Posted by RainbowDash52 1 year ago
RainbowDash52
@whiteflame

Since when was "Con showed that {insert negation of resolution here}" considered a sufficient reason for voting for Con? Because that is exactly what the voter did when explaining why Con's arguments won.
Posted by Omniscient_Debater 1 year ago
Omniscient_Debater
@Whiteflame, I wonder who could have reported that?
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: ThinkBig// Mod action: NOT Removed<

4 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: The resolution is "Peanut butter does not contain nuts." Pro should have clearly defined the resolution and terms in the first round. Con showed that it is possible that there is peanut butter that DOES IN FACT contain nuts. Pro tried to to a bait and switch on the resolution (a violation of conduct) and thus conduct and arguments go to con.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter clearly explains why they view Pro as having committed a conduct violation and how Con met what they view as a reasonable interpretation of the resolution. That is sufficient to explain this decision.
************************************************************************
Posted by dustryder 1 year ago
dustryder
A peanut is a nut under culinary terms though.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by David_Debates 1 year ago
David_Debates
RainbowDash52Omniscient_DebaterTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Pro leaves 3 key terms undefined in the debate: peanut butter, contain, and nuts. As Con points out in round 3, "This is completely unfair of you. All terms of the debate must be discussed in the 1st round by the instigator, otherwise, they may be disregarded. It's far too late for you to change the debate." Arguments: Pro attempts to show how one brand of peanut butter (Jif) does not contain nuts, but instead, contains legumes. However, Con reverses this upon Pro, pointing out that since Pro did not define any of his terms, thereby giving Pro the burden to "show that there are no instances of peanut butter containing nuts." As the rounds progressed, Pro was unable to meet that burden. In the end, therefore, arguments go to Con for sufficiently disproving Pro's undefined, unspecific case.