The Instigator
Woodstove
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
NarutoUzamaki
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Vegetarians and vegans should stop telling omnivores what to eat.

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 2 votes the winner is...
NarutoUzamaki
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/2/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 642 times Debate No: 45095
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

Woodstove

Pro

Hello, and thank you for excepting this debate. I started this because I am tired of being told what I can and can not eat. In this debate I would like to discus ethics, science, and weather or not it is anyone's business what I eat.

P.S. I think factory farming is not good, so that subtopic cant be my opponents argument.
NarutoUzamaki

Con

I would like to point out your argument. You are only stating yourself in this particular situation. The first amendment gives us the right of freedom of speech and someone has the right to say what they want to say ( even if it is offensive and against the law) they still have a right. You also spelled accepting wrong but don't sweat it could have been a typing mistake. People have the right to say what they want. The government has no right to ban what someone has said. Unless it is something that has a good explanation on why it is not good than you cant tell someone what not to say.
Debate Round No. 1
Woodstove

Pro

Woodstove forfeited this round.
NarutoUzamaki

Con

Forfit yet no argument
Debate Round No. 2
Woodstove

Pro

Woodstove forfeited this round.
NarutoUzamaki

Con

How did you forget a debate?
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Defro 3 years ago
Defro
@NarutoUzmaki

Very well put! When I first saw the debate on the debate page, I was just thinking about the first amendment! Then I click on it and see you've mentioned just that!
Posted by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
So, are you making it against the rules to talk about factory farms or not?
Posted by Woodstove 3 years ago
Woodstove
I am just saying that I don't see it as a vlid argument and I don't think you can debate on something I agree on.
Posted by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
You say it's not one's place to tell another what to eat, but then have the nerve to tell your opponent what and what not to argue.
Posted by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
So, you are suggesting one should try to defend vegetarianism/veganism, without actually talking about vegetarian/veganism? You do realize factory farms are one of the core reasons for such a decision, right?
Posted by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
So, you are suggesting one should try to defend vegetarianism/veganism, without actually talking about vegetarian/veganism? You do realize factory farms are one of the core reasons for such a decision, right?
Posted by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
So, you are suggesting one should try to defend vegetarianism/veganism, without actually talking about vegetarian/veganism? You do realize factory farms are one of the core reasons for such a decision, right?
Posted by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
So, you are suggesting one should try to defend vegetarianism/veganism, without actually talking about vegetarian/veganism? You do realize factory farms are one of the core reasons for such a decision, right?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
WoodstoveNarutoUzamakiTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for the forfeits. Arguments for Pro not having any, and Con making some. This debate could have been interesting, but Pro ruined that. Con also had better S&G in my opinion, which is not to say his were perfect. Nobody sourced. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
Vote Placed by Defro 3 years ago
Defro
WoodstoveNarutoUzamakiTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con get's points for convincing arguments because Pro made none. Pro also made a spelling mistake (which Con pointed out). By forfeiting, Pro loses points in conduct. Con, you should have provided a wikipedia link or something about the first amendment. Then you could have gotten 7 points!