The Instigator
Aaronroy
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
Chrysippus
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

Resolution: That CSPI is more interested in spreading vegetarianism rather than food safety

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/6/2011 Category: Health
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,762 times Debate No: 15821
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (5)

 

Aaronroy

Pro

I stand Pro.
I await an opponent.
Chrysippus

Con

I am Con to the resolution, "CSPI is more interested in spreading vegetarianism rather than food safety."

A few quick definitions:

CSPI: http://www.cspinet.org...

vegetarianism: the principle or practice of excluding all meat and fish, and sometimes, in the case of vegans, all animal products (such as eggs, cheese, etc) from one's diet (see http://dictionary.reference.com... )

food safety: In this case, the information needed to keep consumers safe from harmful or substandard foods. A good selection of articles on this subject can be found here: http://www.foodsafety.gov... and here: http://www.cspinet.org...

I await my opponent's opening arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
Aaronroy

Pro

I accept my opponent's definitions, therefore I will not post my defintions

Contention 1) CSPI promotes unhealthy food diets:

It is well known that CSPI denounces fatty foods, but at the same time promotes high-carbohydrate foods. Studies have shown that high-carbohydrate foods are more dangerous than fatty foods for carbohydrates are seen as the body as 100% sugar. Thus, the body has to create insulin to deal with these carbohydrates. If the carbohydrates are not used as energy, they are then converted to fat. High fat diets actually are healthier than high carbohydrate diets, being that it takes longer for the body to use the fat as energy, giving the consumer of said fats, a full feeling, causing the consumer to have a lesser urge to snack/eat less throughout the day. On the other hand, carbohydrates, being that they are burned through easily, give the consumer a tired feeling after the energy has been burned through. Tom Naughton, director and actor of the movie Fat Head (food documentary replying to the "Super Size Me" crowd proved one can LOSE weight on high fat foods. In fact, he even lowered his cholesterol ratio on a fatty food diet! It is SELF-EVIDENT that CSPI's "Green & High Carb" diet is fruitless (hehe, pun.)

Contention 2) CSPI denounces perfectly healthy foods

CSPI denounces nearly all food genres that include fats, especially trans fats. But of course, CSPI only sees one kind of trans fat, the evil doer trans fat super villian causing America to be fact on their own accord. Could it be a responsibility issue, or a parenting problem? Oh no, says CSPI! In fact, CSPI even claims that eggs are a "dangerous food." This is ridiculous when many naturally accuring trans fats are good for oneself. Naturally occuring trans fats found in milk and yogurt significantly dropped the cholesterol levels of obese rats during a research experiment at the University of Alberta. As I've stated before in my previous contention, fatty foods can be good for a healthy diet, as long as exercise is present. Esentially, a breakfast of bacon is healthier than having a bowl of cereal.

http://www.latimes.com...
www.fathead-movie.com/ (informative nutrition movie about carbohydrates that I used in my 1st contention)
http://www.thedietchannel.com...
Chrysippus

Con

Chrysippus forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Aaronroy

Pro

My opponent has not refuted any of my contentions.

Vote PRO.
Chrysippus

Con

Sadly, there is no way to fix my error other than to instruct the voters to vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
The resolution is "more concerned with vegetarianism than food safety." I assume "safety" is in the broad sense of "health risk." Anyway, Pro's opening argument supported the idea they are more concerned with vegetarianism than with health risk. One of the standard vegetarian arguments is that animal food is way too dangerous to eat because of contamination risk. Pro should have better-defined his contentions. It could have been an interesting debate.
Posted by Aaronroy 5 years ago
Aaronroy
Being that many high-end officials of the CSPI are vegetarians, I can only come to the conclusion that they are more interested in spreading vegetarianism, thus the resoulution
Posted by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
Too bad Chrysippus forfeited. This would have been as easy win.
Posted by Chrysippus 5 years ago
Chrysippus
Well, that was unexpected. I thought I had another half-day to get this in. With no arguments in the first round, and no way for you to respond to any arguments I'd make in the last, this debate is effectively scuttled; I apologize.

If you resubmit this and take on an opponent who watches the clock better than I did, note that your second round doesn't fit the resolution. You touch on neither vegetarianism nor food safety; you may be successful in showing the CSPI's obsession with carbs, but you have not upheld the resolution. You have not even done that yet, though, without proper sources.

That was to be the gist of my second round, plus a challenge to this mythical consensus among nutrition experts. I am aware of a massive debate surrounding the proper balance of carbs, proteins, and fats, but not of any consensus.
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
You should define CSPI and make a case that it does what you say.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
AaronroyChrysippusTied
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: Con gracefully concedes.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
AaronroyChrysippusTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con presented no case.
Vote Placed by Extremely-Far-Right 5 years ago
Extremely-Far-Right
AaronroyChrysippusTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Same for what RoyLatham said.
Vote Placed by headphonegut 5 years ago
headphonegut
AaronroyChrysippusTied
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 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: he had it won
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
AaronroyChrysippusTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments not refuted; forfeit loses conduct. I think Pro was in the right track in his arguments, but we didn't get to hear from Con. Clearly CSPI has an agenda other than health or food safety, but maybe it is political correctness or something other than vegetarianism.