The Instigator
MasterVentus
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Zarroette
Pro (for)
Winning
28 Points

Veganism is not good for everyone

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 6 votes the winner is...
Zarroette
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/8/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 654 times Debate No: 68033
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (6)

 

MasterVentus

Con

Studies by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics show that veganism is healthy. However all but seven of the authors of A.N.D.'s vegetarian position papers since 1988 have been vegetarians or vegans.
Zarroette

Pro

Thank you, Master Ventus, for instigating this debate.


Despite my opponent being Con, he/she hs the burden of proof due to the double negative (negating "not good"). Therefore, my opponent needs to make positive arguments to negate the resolution, yet affirm his stance. Thus, I await my opponent's opening round of arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
MasterVentus

Con

MasterVentus forfeited this round.
Zarroette

Pro

My opponent has yet to provide an argument to negate the negative resolution.

However, I will provide an argument of my own because I assume that the burden of proof is shared.


Affirmative Case


To win this debate, I only have to provide one instance of where veganism is not good for everyone.

Veganism requires strict observance of diet in order for someone to remain healthy. I think it is reasonable to assume that 'healthy' equates to 'good'.

For example, the vitamin B-12 is not sufficiently found it plants (it is best found in meat), due to the amount varying to as little as no B-12 [1]. If you cannot access vitamin B-12 in supplement form, then you should not be a vegan. Therefore, the instance(s) of where veganism is not good for everyone is where people do not have access to vitamin B-12 supplements (such as people who live in Africa where clean water is hard enough to find, let alone supplements like these).


I can provide many other instances, should my opponent provide any counter-arguments. Until then, the resolution is affirmed.



References:

[1] Billings TE, 1999. Vitamin B-12: Rhetoric and Reality, part 4 of: Comparative Anatomy and Physiology Brought Up to Date, on the website Beyond Vegetarianism; URL: http://www.beyondveg.com....shtml
Debate Round No. 2
MasterVentus

Con

MasterVentus forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by RevNge 2 years ago
RevNge
Noob snipe ftw
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
MasterVentusZarroetteTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Pro. Con forfeited multiple rounds which is rarely acceptable in any debate setting. S&G - Tie. Both had proper spelling and grammar where applied. Arguments - Pro. Con failed to present any supporting arguments for their stance throughout the debate. Pro was left standing unchallenged and thus maintained her position. This is a clear arguments win for Pro. Sources - Pro. Con failed to utilize any sources whatsoever, even though the opening round really called for them. For this, Pro wins sources.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
MasterVentusZarroetteTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by warren42 2 years ago
warren42
MasterVentusZarroetteTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct Pro due to forfeit, arguments Pro due to Con not giving any, sources Pro because Con didn't give any. Pro case was nice. Short and to the point.
Vote Placed by bluesteel 2 years ago
bluesteel
MasterVentusZarroetteTied
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: ff
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
MasterVentusZarroetteTied
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: Ff
Vote Placed by Tweka 2 years ago
Tweka
MasterVentusZarroetteTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: FF