The Instigator
Kleptin
Pro (for)
Winning
47 Points
The Contender
me_a
Con (against)
Losing
10 Points

To be suggested by the contender

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  
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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/13/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,367 times Debate No: 4009
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (11)

 

Kleptin

Pro

This will be a three round debate.

The debate will work in this manner:

1A: First Post Instigator:
This explanatory post.

1B: First Post Contender:
Contender suggests a list of 3 topics, phrased in valid format (ie. not in question format) Topics should be legitimate, and varied.

2A: Second Post Instigator:
Instigator responds with his choice of the three.

2B: Second Post Contender:
Contender then chooses a position on that issue and has the choice of whether to go first or second. If the contender chooses to go first, he effectively becomes the instigator and makes his opening statement immediately. If he chooses to do so, he must forfeit his last round response by typing "thank you for the debate" until the character count is satisfied.

Otherwise, he types "I will allow my opponent to make the opening statement" until the character count is satisfied.

The rest of the rounds act as the rounds of a typical debate.
me_a

Con

Topic 1:
Vegetarianism is the way to go.

Topic 2:
The United States should support the Green Belt Movement in Kenya.

Topic 3:
The system of democratic primaries within the United States is contrary to democratic values.
Debate Round No. 1
Kleptin

Pro

I choose topic number one, on vegetarianism.

Please select your stance and I will debate accordingly.
me_a

Con

First off, I would like to thank my opponent for selecting topic 1. I've been wanting to debate this for quite some time.

My position will be pro, meaning that I am in support of vegetarianism.

To adhere to typical debate structure, I will give my opening argument now.

As clarification, destructive and violent acts committed by animal rights activists and organizations are not relevant in the realm of this debate, as vegetarianism itself does not promote or cause these actions.

Vegetarianism is beneficial to various sectors of human interest; however, I would like to focus on two: health and the environment.

Point 1: Vegetarianism is beneficial to a person's health.
I'd like to open with a quote from the Utah Beef Council which states, "Several epidemiological studies indicate that vegetarians have lower morbidity and mortality from chronic degenerative diseases."
The Utah Beef Council is a prominent contender in the American meat industry. Clearly, even they acknowledge the health benefits of vegetarianism.
If the meat industry is not convincing enough, consider the World Cancer Research Fund. In 1997, they recommended a vegetarian diet to reduce the risk of cancer.
Various other studies confirm vegetarianism's benefits. A resent comprehensive analysis of a vegetarian religious group, the Seventh Day Adventists, found that they had half the rate of high blood pressure and diabetes, half the rate of colon cancer, and two-thirds the rate of arthritis and prostate cancer as other, more carnivorous groups.
Another study conducted by Cornell University found the eating less meat did more to reduce osteoporosis than supplementing your diet with calcium.
If health isn't particularly important, consider finance. No, being a vegetarian won't save you a significant amount of money at the grocery store, but it will save you thousands at the doctor's office. Winston Craig, a registered dietician, says that meat eating costs Americans between $30-$60 billion per year in medical expenses for hypertension, heart disease, cancer, diabetes, gallstones, obesity, and food-borne illnesses associated with meat. He goes on to say that a vegetarian diet is associated with lower cholesterol, lower blood pressure, and less obesity.
Clearly, vegetarianism is beneficial to a person's health in a multitude of ways.

Point 2: Vegetarianism is beneficial to the environment.

According to FAO, the livestock sector is responsible for 18% of all carbon emissions. Global meat production is projected to more than double from 229 million tons in 1999/2001 to 465 million tons in 2050. This increase spells disaster for our environment. The meat industry is a significant contributor to global warming and pollution. Meat based nutrition requires 20 times more land and 14 times more water than a plant-based diet. The production of 1kg of meat requires 10-16 kg of cereals and other plant food. This food could be used to create alternative energy or directly assist the fight against world hunger. Though the world doesn't necessarily appear to be approaching a Malthusian apocalypse, it is approaching and/or experiencing substantial drought. To produce 4kg of meat, the amount of water needed is equal to what a normal family consumes in one year. Once again, this water would be more beneficial when used for other, more direct and efficient purposes.
Though vegetarians only comprise 2% of the United State's population, they are already making an impact on the industry and decreasing the amount of carbon and pollution produced, as well as the amount of grains/plants and water wasted. If more people became vegetarians, even more pollution could be controlled.

Vegetarianism can reduce health risks, promote a healthy life style, and encourage a healthy, safe, sustainable environment for all. Clearly, vegetarianism is the way to go.
Debate Round No. 2
Kleptin

Pro

My opponent has elected to be the instigator of this debate, and I shall respond accordingly.

I say that vegetarianism is NOT the best diet one can take. Rather, a vegetarian diet that also includes fish and lean meat.

I am a biomedical student, and I can very easily explain the misconceptions of my opponent's sources of health statistics.

The statistics my opponent provided in all part 1 were valid, but my opponent's interpretation is an example of the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" logical fallacy.

Cutting out meat from the diet isn't the immediate cause of the morbidity and mortality, it's just that statistically speaking, those who exercise some form of diet control tend to be healthier. The majority of us who are omnivorous also account for a massive amount of the population that has chronic health disorders such as diabetes and hypertension. I propose it is not the actual diet that excludes meat, but the fact that vegetarians have a certain dietary control in GENERAL that leads to these health benefits. Therefore, my proposal that the diet also include lean white meat and fish is just as good as my opponent's proposal of pure vegetarianism.

Unless my opponent can provide data where vegetarians are compared with those who also include lean meat and fish in moderate quantities, and that this data shows that the vegetarians are significantly healthier, there is no reason to assume that MEAT causes poor health. It's FAT that causes poor health.

I will now explain why the inclusion of meat is a great benefit to our diet. Human beings, in order to carry out the biochemical processes that sustain life, require amino acids. These compounds come in 21 natural types that when strung together, make proteins. Proteins are the primary macromolecule responsible for our bodily structure, and also for the structure of other animals. The body produces many of these amino acids, but there are quite a few that must be consumed in the diet. A vegetarian diet is composed solely of plant life. The structural compound for plants is cellulose, an indigestible substance that goes in one end and out the other. We cannot derive amino acids from a purely vegetarian diet, this is why evolutionarily speaking, we need to eat meat. All meat is made up of nearly pure protein, and each protein molecule is made up of hundreds if not thousands of amino acid molecules of all varieties. So including just a little bit of lean meat in the diet can make up for whatever extremes you need to go through in order to get those nutrients from a vegetarian diet.

As for my opponent's part 2, I believe that my version of the diet, which includes fish and lean meat, would be better as well. The meat industry would suffer greatly in my suggestion too, but not close down completely as my opponent's suggestion would force them to do. In fact, my proposal would select for a new meat industry that processes healthier meat, and instead of fattening up the animals, they would try to keep them as healthy and chemical free as possible. In addition, the fishing industry, which is a massive industry in and of itself, would be even more efficient with the high demand in fish.

Thus, my proposal has nearly all the benefits of my opponent's proposal with none of the bad side effects.
me_a

Con

My opponent stated that vegetarians have "a certain dietary control in GENERAL that leads to these health benefits." Therefore, it is a logical connection to link vegetarianism with the said health benefits. Obviously, vegetarians do have significant dietary control, it is their diet that leads to the health benefits. I'm not entirely sure why that is a logical fallacy. My opponent then suggested the argument of including lean white meat and fish. Certainly, this is a better option than continuing to eat fatty meats; however, for the benefits to be received in full, you must practice a pure vegetarian diet. Not only this, even lean meat and fish have significant health threats.

According to the Department of International Health, "The US population typically consumes diets high in meat and saturated fat and low in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. This dietary pattern increases the risk for heart disease, certain types of cancer, stroke and diabetes- four of the leading causes of death in the USA. The costs due to poor diet for just these four diseases are estimated to exceed $33 billion per annum. On the other hand, high intakes of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains and 'Mediterranean' dietary patterns, typically high in plant-based foods and unsaturated fats, lower the incidence of chronic diseases and their risk factors, including body mass index and obesity."
Now, I don't mean to repeat myself, but combine those facts with the following:
According to the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, "Demand for meat in the USA continues to grow, particularly for poultry. The American Heart Association recommends an upper limit of 138 lb of lean meat per person each year, more than 80 lb less than the current average US consumption of 222 lb. Americans consume about 10 billion animals each year, not including fish, averaging, for a family of four, 120 chickens, four pigs and one cow."
As we can see from these statistics, the average American family eats significantly more chicken, which is considered to be lean meat, than red meat every year. However, they are still experiencing the health problems associated with meat; certainly, not all heart disease can be attributed to the single cow. As the demand for poultry rises, it is clear that more people are being swept up in the "lean meat" trend, but the health problems are not decreasing due to their change in diet. Also, the American Heart Association would not recommend a limit for something they found to be inherently good. As you can see, the average American already well exceeds the recommended limit. Undoubtedly, they would exceed it significantly more if they were to cut out all none-lean meat from their diet.
In addition, the Center for a Livable Future blatantly states, "Meat is not a necessary component of a well-planned diet. Ovo-lacto vegetarian diets that include eggs and low-fat dairy products can easily be nutritionally adequate. Studies suggest that diets high in animal protein, regardless of fat content, increase the risk of cardiovascular mortality." This statement out rules my opponent's claim that it is fat alone that causes poor health, as well as their claim that a vegetarian diet is not nutritionally adequate.

My opponent's final statement for this first argument was, "So including just a little bit of lean meat in the diet can make up for whatever extremes you need to go through in order to get those nutrients from a vegetarian diet." Apparently, my opponent thinks that taking a dietary supplement is an extreme. They chose to bring in the fact that they are a biomedical student, so I will bring in my own personal fact. I am, in fact, a vegetarian. And I am, in fact, incredibly healthy. And I do, indeed, take a nutritional supplement. It is not at all a hassle, nor an extreme of any sort. A simple multivitamin can make up for any nutritional benefits of meat, while ensuring that you do not experience any of the negative effects of meat consumption.

My opponent suggests that their proposal would encourage the meat industry to process healthier meats. Simply because they are processing healthier meat, does not mean that they would produce any less CO2. The meat industry would continue to produce the same amount of carbon whether they're processing healthy or unhealthy meat. The fattening up of the animals does not contribute significantly to carbon emissions. Also, my opponent states that their proposal would increase the fishing industry to satisfy the higher demand for fish. Apparently my opponent is unaware that, at our current rate, the oceans will be depleted by 2025. An increase in fishing would accelerate this process and destroy ocean ecosystems. As a clearly intelligent person, my opponent should understand the delicacy of Earth's equilibrium, which has already been devastated by massive amounts of CO2 and depletion of wildlife. The sudden loss of an entire ecosystem would send countless natural cycles into turmoil. Not to mention that when the fish were gone, people would rely even more heavily on lean meat; therefore, making the meat industry expand and expel even more pollution.

A purely vegetarian diet has resounding health benefits, while even a diet including only lean meat and fish can be threatening to ones health. No essential nutrition is lost through a vegetarian diet that cannot be regained through a multivitamin. My opponent's proposal would not, as they said, "be better." It would cause over fishing to escalate, and would not encourage the meat industry to pursue more environmentally sound alternatives. A purely vegetarian diet is the only way to receive the health benefits and protect the environment by reducing fishing and pollution.
Debate Round No. 3
Kleptin

Pro

Henceforth, a vegetarian diet including moderate amounts of lean meat and fish shall be known as "the modified diet".

"My opponent stated that vegetarians have "a certain dietary control in GENERAL that leads to these health benefits." Therefore, it is a logical connection to link vegetarianism with the said health benefits. "

Yes, however, this does not eliminate the possibility that my modified diet plan is any inferior, as it is ALSO a form of dietary control.

"Obviously, vegetarians do have significant dietary control, it is their diet that leads to the health benefits. I'm not entirely sure why that is a logical fallacy."

It is a logical fallacy because my opponent has provided no proof that a pure vegetarian diet is superior to one equally rigorous but including fish and lean meat.

My opponent then attempts to show that meat, even fish and lean meat, are harmful.

The first piece of evidence is logically fallacious. My opponent compares the average american diet "high in meat, saturated fat, and low in fruits" with the vegetarian diet. This point can be totally ignored because it does not compare with my suggestion of the modified diet.

My opponent's second point attacks the consumption of chicken. However, the statistic also runs on the average American family, and not the modified diet I proposed. This is yet another attempt at bending statistics and relying on deception to sway voters.

"Also, the American Heart Association would not recommend a limit for something they found to be inherently good. As you can see, the average American already well exceeds the recommended limit. Undoubtedly, they would exceed it significantly more if they were to cut out all none-lean meat from their diet."

This is incorrect. Everyone knows that too much of a good thing may harm you, excessive ANYTHING is harmful. The logical fallacy in my opponent's argument is "either it is all good, or it is all bad" and this is called the FALSE DICHOTOMY FALLACY. In addition, my opponent admits that the study only shows that we should cut all non-lean meat. This point can be ignored because it has nothing to do with my modified diet.

My opponent brings up another point about how eggs and low-fat dairy products can be nutritionally adequate as a replacement to meat. My opponent's evidence is an alleged study on diets high in animal protein. Yet again, this is more deception, as it has NOTHING to do with my modified diet, which includes but has a far below average level of animal protein. My opponent has not shown that all meat is inherently bad, and should be completely cut. My modified diet allows for eggs, fairy products, lean meat, and fish, offering a much wider variety at identical health benefits with moderation as its key focus. Thus, my opponent's point can also be ignored here.

"Apparently, my opponent thinks that taking a dietary supplement is an extreme. They chose to bring in the fact that they are a biomedical student, so I will bring in my own personal fact. I am, in fact, a vegetarian. And I am, in fact, incredibly healthy. And I do, indeed, take a nutritional supplement. It is not at all a hassle, nor an extreme of any sort. A simple multivitamin can make up for any nutritional benefits of meat, while ensuring that you do not experience any of the negative effects of meat consumption."

I chose to mention that I am a biomedical student in order to bring credibility to a stipulated fact. My opponent's status as a healthy vegetarian means little to nothing. I know quite a few sickly vegetarians and I know some very robust and healthy people who eat massive amounts of meat. In addition, if my opponent has never tried my modified diet, then there is no need to bring up personal diet choice. In addition, it is not a proven fact that meat consumption in and of itself has any negative effects. Rather, all my opponent's points, all my opponent's evidence shows that EXCESSIVE meat consumption is bad. There have been no references at all to my modified diet.

"My opponent suggests that their proposal would encourage the meat industry to process healthier meats. Simply because they are processing healthier meat, does not mean that they would produce any less CO2. The meat industry would continue to produce the same amount of carbon whether they're processing healthy or unhealthy meat."

My opponent has misjudged my argument. I am saying that since the demand for meat will decrease, there will be less factories in general.

"The fattening up of the animals does not contribute significantly to carbon emissions."

I made this point to emphasize a future with healthier meat, not to emphasize lower carbon emissions.

"Also, my opponent states that their proposal would increase the fishing industry to satisfy the higher demand for fish. Apparently my opponent is unaware that, at our current rate, the oceans will be depleted by 2025. An increase in fishing would accelerate this process and destroy ocean ecosystems. As a clearly intelligent person, my opponent should understand the delicacy of Earth's equilibrium, which has already been devastated by massive amounts of CO2 and depletion of wildlife. The sudden loss of an entire ecosystem would send countless natural cycles into turmoil. Not to mention that when the fish were gone, people would rely even more heavily on lean meat; therefore, making the meat industry expand and expel even more pollution."

I retract my statement, because the conversion to this diet would not increase meat consumption or fish consumption. In fact, it would DECREASE fish consumption and meat consumption. I apologize for my mistake. Switching to my proposed modified diet would reduce consumption of both by a significant amount and would increase greatly the average consumption of vegetables and fruits. Thus, I thank my opponent for another point of benefit to my proposed modified diet.

****

To summarize, my opponent has been trying to attack meat and say that it has inherent health detriments. I have knocked away each and every statistic as flawed. My opponent attempts to decieve voters by showing statistics for EXCESSIVE meat consumption against a PURE VEGETARIAN DIET. However, my modified diet is extremely low in meat, containing only fish and lean meats. Thus, none of my opponent's statistics this round hold any weight in this debate whatsoever.

In addition, my modified diet, if accepted, would not shut down the fishing industry or the meat industry like my opponent's vegetarian diet would. In fact, it would greatly reduce both industries while raising the average consumption of vegetables and fruits.

My opponent obviously has some sort of bias towards meat outside the realm of health. My opponent has no standing reason to propose that a diet with NO meat is inherently better than the exact same diet with a LITTLE bit of meat. Unless my opponent can find significant proof that even the slightest amount of meat can be detrimental to health, I can say that my modified diet allows for greater variety with all the health benefits, and thus, is superior to a pure vegetarian diet.
me_a

Con

My opponent said that my information was "logically fallacious" and that I have not compared pure vegetarianism with their modified diet. First, I indeed have and I shall restate that point in a moment. But more importantly, I'd like to point out that my opponent has not specifically indetified with their modified diet is superior to vegetarianism. Though they provided information about it, they did not prove it to be the better of the too. Also, need I remind you that all of my opponent's arguments are based off of their personal biomedical experience, but not a single legitimate source.

My opponent also said that I attacked chicken, but that this did not relate to the modified diet. Indeed, my evidence does relate to the modified diet as it shows the health risks of chicken consumption. Yes, the current habits of the average American vary from those of someone practicing the modified diet; however, the diet does indeed propose consuming chicken, a generally lean meat, which does have the aforementioned risks. These statistics are not deceptions, they're facts, with sources that my opponent lacks.

If my opponent will call for me to provide evidence, which I have done in every argument, I would appreciate the same from them.

"In addition, my opponent admits that the study only shows that we should cut all non-lean meat. This point can be ignored because it has nothing to do with my modified diet."
The information I provided showed why we should non-lean meat; however, my opponent says that this is irrelevant because it does not pertain to the boundaries of the modified diet. If I understand correctly, the modified diet proposes the consumption of lean-meat, my information shows why it should not be consumed. Not only does this directly counter the modified diet, it is entirely relevant. Please refer to previous arguments for the specific information.

My opponent's only arguments against my environmental points were that I "misjudged" their argument or that they simply would like to retract their statement. A statement can be retracted, but it can not be ignored. My opponent's modified diet does nothing for the environment. It would not decrease the amount of meat processing factories, as these factories would simply begin to process a different kind of meat. These factories would still be in business and would still emit pollutants and toxins.
Also, my opponent stated that their diet would not increase consumption of fish. However, people would undoubtedly eat an increased amount of fish as a whole because those who at little fish would increase their intake to replace the other meat they were not eating and those who ate no fish at all would also begin to take the place of their former dietary habits. This would lead to a drastic loss in ocean life. Even if my opponent's diet did hypothetically decrease the amount of fish eaten, it would not help to replenish the world's oceans. A purely vegetarian diet would cease the consumption of fish and other sea creatures, allowing the oceans to restore equilibrium.

My opponent has not provided any hard facts as to why the modified diet is significantly more beneficial than pure vegetarianism. They have simply repeated the fact that the modified diet includes only a little bit of meat. However, I have proven, through facts and statistics, that any amount of meat is not as healthy as a purely vegetarian diet.
A vegetarian diet reduces the risks of cancers, heart disease, and countless other ailments. My opponent's proposed diet continues to subject the consumer to the risks of meat.

Also, my opponent has offered not logical argument as to why their diet helps the environment. They have simply said that some factories would close and less fish would be eaten. This, my friends, is a real example of a logical fallacy. My opponent is assuming that people may eat less meat if it were part of the modified diet, therefore assuming that factories would close. However, on the grounds of a purely vegetarian diet, factories would have to close, because their would be no market for meat. Also, a purely vegetarian diet is far more beneficial to the environment. It allows nature to restore the highest possible level of equilibrium, returning it to its natural state.

In summary, my opponent is relying entirely on their own experience, they have offered not other fact supported by an outside source. They have not proven why even the slightest amount of meat is necessary in the human diet. And they certainly have failed to prove that their modified diet is beneficial to the environment.

Even if you feel as though my opponent has managed to prove some health or environmental benefits, realize that a purely vegetarian diet is significantly more advantageous in both areas.
Debate Round No. 4
Kleptin

Pro

"But more importantly, I'd like to point out that my opponent has not specifically indetified with their modified diet is superior to vegetarianism. Though they provided information about it, they did not prove it to be the better of the too. Also, need I remind you that all of my opponent's arguments are based off of their personal biomedical experience, but not a single legitimate source."

What my argument is based on has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of my arguments. I am arguing that my modified diet is superior because it offers more variety with none of the harmful effects. You have not proven in any way, shape, or form that meat in and of itself is harmful, only that EXCESSSIVE meat is connected with poor health.

"My opponent also said that I attacked chicken, but that this did not relate to the modified diet. Indeed, my evidence does relate to the modified diet as it shows the health risks of chicken consumption." Yes, the current habits of the average American vary from those of someone practicing the modified diet; however, the diet does indeed propose consuming chicken, a generally lean meat, which does have the aforementioned risks. These statistics are not deceptions, they're facts, with sources that my opponent lacks."

This is more deception on my opponent's behalf. The statistics my opponent cited from the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health specifically attacks chicken consumption of the AVERAGE American family. Modified diet would include levels of chicken FAR, below average.

"If my opponent will call for me to provide evidence, which I have done in every argument, I would appreciate the same from them."

My evidence is merely logical reasoning. My opponent proposes that we cut all meat while I say that keeping some meat, as per our natural diet, is better in that we have more variety. If my opponent is suggesting an extreme like that, it's only reasonable to expect an unarguable piece of evidence showing that all meat, in any quantity, is bad for the body. My opponent has FAILED to do so. So why accept my opponent's pure vegetarian diet over a modified diet that includes meat but in low enough quantities to aboid potential problems?

"The information I provided showed why we should non-lean meat; however, my opponent says that this is irrelevant because it does not pertain to the boundaries of the modified diet. If I understand correctly, the modified diet proposes the consumption of lean-meat, my information shows why it should not be consumed. Not only does this directly counter the modified diet, it is entirely relevant. Please refer to previous arguments for the specific information."

I repeat, my opponent's statistics were zeroing in on the AVERAGE american family's consumption of lean meat. My modified diet would not contain anywhere NEAR those high amounts. I have said time and time again, the diet I propose is essentially vegetarian, with the inclusion of a little bit of lean meat and fish to provide essential proteins and amino acids in the diet.

"It would not decrease the amount of meat processing factories, as these factories would simply begin to process a different kind of meat. These factories would still be in business and would still emit pollutants and toxins."

Less meat demanded = less meat factories to produce pollutants and toxins. It's that simple. My opponent just has difficulty grasping that concept.

"Also, my opponent stated that their diet would not increase consumption of fish. However, people would undoubtedly eat an increased amount of fish as a whole because those who at little fish would increase their intake to replace the other meat they were not eating and those who ate no fish at all would also begin to take the place of their former dietary habits."

Incorrect again. My modified diet would generally decrease intake of ALL meat, even though fish would make up a big portion of the meat that a person consumes, the proposed diet would be so high in vegetables, fruits, and grains that it would still shrink the fishing industry.

"My opponent has not provided any hard facts as to why the modified diet is significantly more beneficial than pure vegetarianism. They have simply repeated the fact that the modified diet includes only a little bit of meat. However, I have proven, through facts and statistics, that any amount of meat is not as healthy as a purely vegetarian diet.
A vegetarian diet reduces the risks of cancers, heart disease, and countless other ailments. My opponent's proposed diet continues to subject the consumer to the risks of meat."

Incorrect, my opponent has provided no statistics stating that. Examining each and every single one of the citations my opponent has made, they ALL pinpoint against HIGH QUANTITY of meat, not that meat is inherently dangerous. Deliberate misinterpretation on my opponent's part should not be considered adequate proof.

My opponent's stance is essentially that I cited no statistics, therefore, I am wrong. While I have logical reasoning to back up my argument, my opponent has none. My opponent's arguments rest solely on those statistics and I have proven them to be inappropriate against my case. Despite my opponent's attempts to mislead and deliberately misinterpret the statistics, I have shown that there is no reason to cut out ALL meat from our diet, just exercise control.
me_a

Con

me_a forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
Just a reminder, my opponent's next post is to be forfeited.
Posted by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
So this is what it comes down to lol.

Albeit it really is a good move considering there are hardly any debate challenges currently in existance. I think the same one has been posted for days now (none new) which people are not taking on because of the whole LD thing. At least that's my reasoning. Anyway I'd be glad to debate you, Kleptin, so if this is still here in a few hours, I just might take you up on it.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
Kleptinme_aTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
Kleptinme_aTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by DiablosChaosBroker 8 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
Kleptinme_aTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
Kleptinme_aTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
Kleptinme_aTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Kleptinme_aTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
Kleptinme_aTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by me_a 8 years ago
me_a
Kleptinme_aTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by InkSlinger4 8 years ago
InkSlinger4
Kleptinme_aTied
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 
Vote Placed by LedLegend 8 years ago
LedLegend
Kleptinme_aTied
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