The Instigator
Okaydoka
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
Flatstanley
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Should the whole world become vegan

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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...
Okaydoka
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/21/2017 Category: Society
Updated: 3 weeks ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 214 times Debate No: 106054
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

Okaydoka

Con

no animals will overpopulate the world also humans couldn't eat meat but other animals could? we would all become pale
Flatstanley

Pro

No eet meet it sin say bibl an gret spoogity monser maed ov meet bol an so no eet is sinn hile kuthulu im 12
Debate Round No. 1
Okaydoka

Con

if you want an animal overpopulated world then go ahead get diesease
Flatstanley

Pro

We stil kil anmal jus 4 funn sais the bibl
Debate Round No. 2
Okaydoka

Con

stop joking with me
Flatstanley

Pro

woottt? U think thes is a GAME? hmmf u fulish runnign round this site, lookig 4 debate wen I AM B?EST WIN, i VERR SMORT my mom told me to belive in myseld and I verrY SERIOS. Animal not thet bad, u no like?? u hate doggy? My dog ded u munster
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by WhiteHawk 3 weeks ago
WhiteHawk
Flatstanley, your debates give me migraines.
Posted by Flatstanley 3 weeks ago
Flatstanley
Es not jok it reel an imorant!
Posted by picklerickfaggotboi 3 weeks ago
picklerickfaggotboi
this whole debate is jokes i love it
Posted by MRAAJ 3 weeks ago
MRAAJ
kid, farmers would go bust, that ruins the whole economic landscape/infrastructure.
Posted by Flatstanley 3 weeks ago
Flatstanley
Im 12 I luv flatstanly
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 weeks ago
dsjpk5
OkaydokaFlatstanleyTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: "woottt? U think thes is a GAME? hmmf u fulish runnign round this site, lookig 4 debate wen I AM B?EST WIN, i VERR SMORT my mom told me to belive in myseld and I verrY SERIOS. Animal not thet bad, u no like?? u hate doggy? My dog ded u munster" is so incoherent that it made understanding Pro's argument near impossible to understand. Con, on the other hand, had easy to understand grammar. S&G to Con
Vote Placed by KostasT.1526 2 weeks ago
KostasT.1526
OkaydokaFlatstanleyTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: 1. Con argued that "no animals will overpopulate the world also humans couldn't eat meat but other animals could? we would all become pale". Pro neither attempted to refute this, nor presented arguments of their own. Thus, Con wins the argument points. 2. While Con's spelling and grammar are pretty much normal, Pro's are plainly preposterous. I do not think I have to elaborate on this further. 3. Conduct: From what I can make out of Pro's text, they insulted their opponent by calling them "foolish" and "you monster" (round 3, "u fulish" and "u munster" translated accordingly). Hence, with no evidence of inappropriate behaviour by Con, the latter wins the conduct points.