The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
3 Points

are tomatoes fruits(pro) or a vegetable (con)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/8/2014 Category: Funny
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 857 times Debate No: 54307
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




i think it is a vege cause its cool like that and elfs have toes... more seriously it has a stem so it can hang on to the little plant it grows on. before it gets ripe it is green... because green isnt a creative color (based on the creative song on youtube) it is a vege


Your arguments:
-Vegetable because it has a stem
-Green before it is ripe
( defines apples as fruit)
Having a stem does not make a tomato a vegetable, if anything that should make it a fruit. Apples are commonly known fruit which also have stems. So, saying that because tomatoes have stems makes them a vegetable, is an invalid argument.

( defines currants as fruit)
You also said that tomatoes are a vegetable because they are green before they are ripe. A fruit known as currants, also is green before it is ripe, and reddens later on, so again that contradicts your definition.

Unless you can define tomatoes in a way that is not applicable to any fruit, then your reasoning and/or definition is invalid.

( ) defines different types of fruits:
Dry fruits - pericarp* becomes dry and often hard at maturity
Fleshy fruits - all or most of the pericarp* is soft and fleshy at maturity
*layers of the fruit

A tomato is soft and fleshy at maturity: It fits the criteria of a fleshy fruit, hence is a fruit.
Debate Round No. 1


i thought we were bs-ing this argument but okay let me get my argument face on... itll take couple seconds...almost...sorry im still bs-ing... okay i have it on...

( Though technically ,what you would like to call this VEGE,"fruit", tomatoes fall under the category of "vegetable," according to the Supreme Court. and those guys know what their talking about
The high court issued this 1893 tomato ruling in a case brought by members of the Nix family against Edward Hedden, collector at the Port of New York, to recover the fees they spent transporting tomatoes.

you see this guy they call Nix, sued the court under the Tariff of 1883, which required taxes on imported vegetables... but not fruit.

Botanically, any seed-bearing structure formed from an angiosperm's (a flowering plant's) ovary is a fruit. Since a tomato protects and contains the seeds of its host plant, the juicy sphere is technically a fruit. Some might be shocked to learn a zucchini is a fruit, too.

General or culinary classifications, however, tend to differ from the botanical one. Most people would consider a tomato a vegetable. And the court essentially gave that reasoning in Nix v. Hedden: A tomato is a vegetable because people think it is. But that's all the boring stuff this is what i should be saying in the beginning

Botanically speaking, tomatoes are the fruit of a vine, just as are cucumbers, squashes, beans, and peas. But in the common language of the people, whether sellers or consumers of provisions, all these are vegetables which are grown in kitchen gardens, and which, whether eaten cooked or raw, are, like potatoes, carrots, parsnips, turnips, beets, cauliflower, cabbage, celery, and lettuce, usually served at dinner in, with, or after the soup, fish, or meats which constitute the principal part of the repast, and not, like fruits generally, as dessert.


'those guys know what their talking about?'
I would not consider this case in any way reliable. The Supreme Court has overruled > 200 of their precedent cases. This Court case was in 1893. Tomatoes may have been considered a vegetable back then, but that in no way applies today. In 1896, the Supreme Court ruled in Plessy v Ferguson 'Separate But Equal' favoring racial segregation. But in 1951, the Supreme Court ruled in Brown V Board against racial segregation, with a 9-0 vote. What the Supreme Court has ruled in 1896 is in no way applicable or reliable, because since then the Supreme Court has overturned many of their rulings.
In the case you provided it was ruled that tomatoes are a vegetable based off the logic that most people in 1896 thought they were: Tomatoes were considered a vegetable under common speech. If a case like this were to be reestablished today, a tomato would not be considered a vegetable because it is no longer considered a vegetable under common speech ( Webster currently defines a tomato as a fruit:

Whether most people in 1893 considered a tomato a fruit or not has no impact on the definition. Common speech has changed. I still stand by the scientific definition I presented in Round 1. You also agree that a tomato is botanically a fruit, having wrote: 'Since a tomato protects and contains the seeds of its host plant, the juicy sphere is technically a fruit.

Debate Round No. 2


you cannot judge the supreme court by one bad case. that is like saying the Military is bad because they kill people (i dont think you need a source for that). but im not gonna go to far off topic ranting on about the military.

And of course you not gonna consider this case reliable cause its against you. and the people in the supreme court serve for life ( but i dont think anyone who served in 1896 was alive in 1951.

To add on to that, it was president Grover Cleveland who was president in 1896 and may i also add he was a democrat and a SLAVE OWNER and may i also add that the democrats where supporting slave owning back then. ( and (

now in 1951 while Harry S. Truman was also a democrat, he did support civil rights. Before he became president, Truman show demonstrated that he had some civil rights credentials. In his campaign to be re-elected senator for Missouri, he said the following in 1940:

"I believe in brotherhood".of all men before the law".if any (one) class or race can be permanently set apart from, or pushed down below the rest in politics and civil rights, so may any other class or race""and we say farewell to the principles on which we count our safety"".The majority of our Negro people find but cold comfort in our shanties and tenements. Surely, as free men, they are entitled to something better than this."

Now to get back to my real point. *Fact one: It is true that botanically a tomato is a fruit. Everyone talks about this. But guess what: so are squash, green beans, bell peppers, and cucumbers. Are you still prepared to pretend you"re a botanist?

*Fact two: To get even more specific, tomatoes are berries. You might also want to note that bananas, avocados, and chili peppers are also berries"and that, botanically, strawberries, blackberries, and raspberries? Not berries at all, my friend, but aggregate fruits.

*Fact three: Check this out, Gregor Mendel: "vegetable" doesn"t even have much botanical meaning. It"s a culinary term and since the tomato isn"t sweet, it"s treated as a vegetable for cooking purposes.


Most of your arguments are irrelevant. Stay on topic next time.
Round 2 you said: "Since a tomato protects and contains the seeds of its host plant, the juicy sphere is technically a fruit."

My point: A case in 1893 decided based on what people thought in 1893 has no basis today.
1. You said: of course you not gonna consider this case reliable cause its against you.
--> Still not refuted.
That's all. You provided no rebuttals at all. Tomatoes are technically a fruit. The Supreme Court Case you provided has an outdated ruling, and was ENTIRELY BASED upon that PEOPLE IN 1893 CONSIDERED it a vegetable. The case has no basis today, because a tomato would no longer be considered a vegetable under common speech. Today, Webster dictionary currently defines a tomato as a fruit:

Completely Irrelevant:
Fact 1: Irrelevant, this is about tomatoes. You also agreed that a tomato is technically a fruit. And still, this new argument does nothing to refute that.
Fact 2: Meaningless. Not a valid argument.
Fact 3: Meaningless. A vegetable does have a botanical meaning (
More so, people can substitute 1 cup Honey for 1 cup of molasses, but neither are the same. Likewise, even if tomatoes are sometimes cooked like vegetables, that still does not change that they are fruit.
Debate Round No. 3


Okay im gonna guess two things: you didn't read what i said or you just didn't read what i said.

my argument in round three is a response to your argument in round 2 with your racial case. This is also irrelevant to the main point that the court never disagreed that the tomatoes are vegetables.

and just saying "meaningless" and "not a valid argument" is no more of a rebuttal than "because its against you."

Reread all of my posts and understand them IF it will help you for your next post.


What made your arguments "meaningless" and "not a valid argument" was because they in no way applied to "are tomatoes fruits(pro) or a vegetable (con)," or any of my arguments.

I fully understand your posts. What Grover Cleveland said does not prove that the Supreme Court's Ruling about tomatoes would be upheld today, and it certainly does not disprove any of my arguments. Plessy V Ferguson and Brown V Board were examples proving that the Supreme Court is not always right, and can change its rulings at any time, nothing more.

Again, I presented these cases just to prove that the Supreme is not always right, and that their rulings can change at any time. Likewise, if the case you mentioned was brought back to the Supreme Court, the rulings would change. The ruling of the case were based upon the idea that tomatoes are a vegetable because most people in 1893 called them a vegetable. As of today, Webster dictionary explicitly defines a tomato as a fruit ( This means that common speech has changed, and hence the logic behind the ruling has no basis. Even if the Supreme Court never overruled Nix v Hedden, the case itself would soon be overruled if it was presented again to the court. Yes, the ruling still applies: a tomato is legally defined as a vegetable. But if this definition were to be enforced, and brought back to the Supreme Court, the ruling would change. So, even if the courts technically consider a tomato a vegetable, any further ruling today would change that precedent.

More so, our argument is:

"are tomatoes fruits(pro) or a vegetable (con)"

This never specifies in America or in any place particularly. Because of this, it is implied that this applies to the world, not just America. Furthermore, a decision made by the Supreme Court only determines if a tomato is legally a vegetable in America, not the entire world. In Round two, you admitted that a tomato is a technically a fruit:
"Since a tomato protects and contains the seeds of its host plant, the juicy sphere is technically a fruit."
Again, providing a Supreme Court case only can prove that a tomato is legally considered a vegetable in America; This does not change that it still is 'technically a fruit' in the rest of the world.
Anything else you mentioned (fact 1... fact 2...) is and was irrelevant. I still stand by the argument I presented in Round 3.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Outsider 2 years ago
Next time put it in the prompt/round 1. I don't read the comments.
Posted by ANONYMOUS2282 2 years ago
lol im gonna bs this whole argument any1 wanna bs with me feel free
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Romanii 2 years ago
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments were a supreme court case and the popular opinion; he even conceded that tomatoes are botanically vegetables. Pro stuck with the technical, botanical definition, and correctly refuted both Con's popular opinion argument (by pointing out the logical flaws in that) as well as Con's supreme court case argument (by pointing out the super-early date of that case and the court's history of overruling cases from that time period).