Debate Rounds (5)
Time to Argue = 12 Hours
Rounds = 5
I say that the ingredients and chemicals used to make chocolate are healthier than those in candy. I say this because candies main ingredient consists of Corn Starch, where as chocolates main ingredient consist of Cocoa.
The Debater will argue that Candy has healthier ingredients found within chocolate.
ps. i didn't change it because it was set from last time
I look forward to an interesting debate.
One of the only negatives found within the Cacao Bean is its "stimulating quality". This term refers to a minor type of high. This is effect is visible when one eats the bean raw itself, pre-roasted.
One can easily say that the base ingredient in chocolate is the Cacao Bean. As you can clearly see it is really good for you. Sugar based candy however has a base ingredient of sugar (granulated sugar, powdered sugar, or brown sugar).
as we can see from the source provided (http://www.mesapersonaltraining.com...), there is a list of negative effects of sugar. If you, my opponent, viewers, or voters, can not access the external the list is provided here for you.
"40 Negative Effects of Sugar:
1. Sugar can suppress the immune system.
2. Sugar can cause hyperactivity, anxiety, difficulty concentrating, and crankiness in children.
3. Sugar produces a rise in triglycerides, a leading cause of heart disease.
4. Sugar contributes to the reduction in defense against bacterial infection.
5. Sugar can cause kidney damage.
6. Sugar reduces high density lipoproteins (good cholesterol).
7. Sugar leads to cancer of the breast, ovaries, intestines, prostate and rectum.
8. Sugar consumption is the top cause of type II diabetes, as it increases levels of glucose and insulin.
9. Sugar interferes with absorption of calcium and magnesium.
10. Sugar weakens eyesight and can cause cataracts.
11. Sugar can cause hypoglycemia (low blood sugar levels).
12. Sugar can produce an acidic stomach.
13. Sugar malabsorption is frequent in patients with functional bowel disease.
14. Sugar consumption can cause aging.
15. Sugar consumption is the top cause of tooth decay.
16. Sugar use cause overeating and therefore contributes to obesity.
17. High intake increases risk of Crohn's Disease and ulcerative colitis.
18. Sugar can cause changes associated with gastric or duodenal ulcers.
19. Sugar can cause arthritis.
20. Sugar can cause asthma.
21. Sugar can cause yeast infections.
22. Sugar can cause gallstones to form.
23. Sugar can cause appendicitis.
24. Sugar can cause multiple sclerosis.
25. Sugar can cause hemorrhoids.
26. Sugar can cause varicose veins.
27. Sugar can elevate glucose and insulin responses in oral contraceptive users.
28. Sugar can contribute to osteoporosis.
29. Sugar can cause periodontal disease and contributes to saliva acidity.
30. Sugar can cause a decrease in insulin sensitivity and glucose tolerance.
31. Sugar can decrease growth hormone.
32. Sugar can increase the systolic blood pressure.
33. Sugar can cause drowsiness and decreased activity in children.
34. Sugar can cause migraine headaches.
35. Sugar can interfere with the absorption of protein.
36. Sugar causes food allergies.
37. Sugar can cause toxemia during pregnancy.
38. Sugar can contribute to eczema in children.
39. Sugar can cause emphysema.
40. Sugar can promote an elevation of low density proteins (LDL)."
The base ingredient of sugar based candies may cause allergies, where as Cacao does not. Those who are allergic to chocolate are only allergic to the milk based products used with in the making process of chocolate. As you can clearly see the The base ingredient of Chocolate is way more healthier than the base ingredient of Sugar based Candies.
So, through the link of evidence and common knowledge, eating chocolate can lead to suicide via a imbalance of accepted bodily hormones. Suicide will outweigh any other harm to candies because:
a. Intentional killing is a definite cause of death. While diseases and harms may come from sugar, they are not a guaranteed way of death. But if I hold a gun to my head and pull the trigger, I have a 100% chance to die and a 0% chance to survive. This will always outweigh because it will cause death one hundred percent of the time, where diseases can often be beaten back and cured.
b. Death outweighs things like disease because while diseases can be cured, death is not something we can cure. We cannot bring someone back from the dead once they have biologically died, but we can cure cancer through various treatment methods (kimotherapy, radiation therapy, etc.)
For these reasons, Vote Con!
1. Trouble at home
2. Change in family dynamics (i.e. new baby, older sister moves back home, Grandmother moves in)
3. Balancing relationships with divorced or separated parents
4. Change of schools
5. Difficulties at school
6. Bullied at school
7. Relationship breakup
8. Social struggles
9. Balancing school, work, social life, and family relationships
10. Facing an environment that encourages drugs, alcohol, and sex
11. The natural separation from parents
13. Learning to accept themselves with or without talents and abilities
14. Getting good grades for college/university
15. Getting a part-time job
16. Choosing a college/university
17. Choosing a career
As silly as some of these reasons might seem, i'll remind you that the cause of suicide being chocolate is absurd.
This list has been compiled in according to professional psychologists whom spend all their time of research specifically on the topic of suicide.
Does chocolate cause mood swings?
Yes, but these mood swings are so minor that one must consume a large amount of chocolate in order to actually cause a mood swing. And we all know that large amount of consumption of anything is unhealthy for you, this goes the same way for candy as it does for chocolate.
Can it lead to suicide?
No, the surrounding atmosphere of the individual may.
What about sugar based candy?
Sugar based candy consumption produces adrenaline, which leads into hyperactivity. Hyperactivity increases the chance of children developing ADD or ADHD, Attention Deficit (Hyperactivity) Disorder. Also, the production of adrenaline in elders may cause a heart related problem like Cardiac Arrests. It also decreases good cholesterol levels, in elders this may cause a heart attack. Furthermore, it may dehydrate the body and lead to water retention, which will cause constipation, and we all know how hard it is to deal with constipation.
First off, let's start with the 40 reasons to hate sugar list. First off I would like to say that these are all bad things. Nobody could reasonably deny that these results are bad. But in terms of the debate, I would like to bring up two points that should make seeing this list a little bit easier.
First: At best, this list is a non-unique impact for his case. Chocolate also has sugar in it, and thus has the potential to cause all of these problems just as much as these ‘sugar based candies' he refers to, without actually specifying to a kind of candy he is talking about.
But secondly: Going off of the first point a little, if chocolate has sugar in it (this is just a true fact. My opponent would be ridiculous to try and rebuke this), then they also have the ability to cause all of these harms. So since I'm proving chocolate has the potential to cause more harms (41 harms compared to the 40 harms), the vote right now becomes an easy vote for the con because I'm showing you how sugar-based candies cause less harms than chocolate does, thus being better for you or ‘healthier'.
So how the round works out post-rebuttal is this: since the long list that pro listed is more or less a non-unique harm, whoever is providing the worst non-unique harm to the opponent's case is going to be winning this round.
Now, let's go to the arguments he made against my case.
First, I'll concede that people generally don't see that chocolate can lead to suicide via an imbalance in the level of human hormones. But just because we don't recognize something as truth, it isn't true. That's like saying if I don't believe one plus one equals two, then it no longer equals two, but instead three. This obviously isn't true, but this is the kind of argument my opponent is trying to make. Just because we don't think of chocolate as causing us depression and leading us to suicide, doesn't make it any less true. And while chocolate may be the least likely reason for suicide, that still doesn't change the truth of the statement. All my opponent is doing is try to appeal to some metric of outside reason by saying "Don't believe this. You know it isn't true. He's being ridiculous." But aside from that, which more or less paraphrases his entire rebuttal, he makes no other arguments against any of my evidence provided.
It's not like I'm not warranting this argument. I've provided you clear links between pieces of evidence that my opponent hasn't even breathed on, that this claim is true. Because he's basically conceded my evidence, he's basically conceding my case. So at this point you can extend the two reasons I gave as to why suicide will always out-weigh the impacts given by the pro debater. As was before, these reasons were not so much as even mentioned in his last speech, and it's going to be one of the most crucial mistakes in my opponent's last round.
Next, he gives you this list of 17 other things that can cause suicide. While these reasons are certainly true in having the potential to cause someone to commit suicide, you don't even need to bother remembering this is further rounds because these in no way, shape, or form are relevant to today's debate. I'm not saying in my case that chocolate is the only cause of suicide, rather that it is only a cause of suicide. So listing other reasons for suicide doesn't really do anything.
Next, my opponent also goes and concedes the link that chocolate causes mood swings. Since this is an integral internal link in my case, it's another reason why you're going to believe the con case over the pro case.
Next, he lists a bunch of harm to ‘sugar-based candies', but he makes a small mistake here. These harms are only related to sugar, not just sugar based candies. Thus, since sugar is also present in chocolate, these harms also apply to the pro as well. And since I'm providing you with a better unique impact than my opponent is, that's why you'll be voting con.
Garipa forfeited this round.
My opponent has mentioned their 'mathematical theory of thought', " I don't believe one plus one equals two, then it no longer equals two, but instead three". They are simply trying to manipulate / play-on-with words. What my opponent is suggesting is that people who eat chocolate are suicidal. On what grounds do I say this? On the second argument he has said "eating chocolate can lead to suicide". This is simply a claim. It is the same as saying "All who eat sugar-based-candy are obese". By their claim in Round Three "Just because we don't think of chocolate as causing us depression and leading us to suicide, doesn't make it any less true" I should be excused to say that sugar-based candy is leading all who eat it into cardiac arrest and heart failure simply by the .001% effect of one of its numerous ingredients. Which is a slower and more painful type of suicide than that of depression. Which shows us that sugar-based candy consumption is more harmful than chocolate due to the painful suicide it causes.
My opponent has also stated the following:
"All my opponent is doing is try to appeal to some metric of outside reason by saying "Don't believe this. You know it isn't true. He's being ridiculous.""
I would like to further explain these false translations of my words. Obviously my opponent has made my reasoning oblivious to himself. They say these because either they fail to see my reasoning or to mislead the viewers who skim past the argument to look for key words. My opponent is not paraphrasing my rebuttal, they are misleading it. They also state that I have made no argument for their claim of chocolate leading into suicide. This is also false. As you can easily see from the third round I have provided a list of reasons for suicide. What this list shows is, those who commit suicide do it due to social and psychological reasons, nowhere on the numerous lists of reasons for suicide can one find a reason relating to chocolate. As you can see my opponent has been making false claims to my arguments. Therefore, they cannot be trusted.
If anything, chocolate is an anti depressant. I could not respond in round four, and for that I give to all voters, comment-ers , and my opponent my sincere apologies. The reason for my absence was that I had to undergo surgery. Before my surgery, the doctor saw that I was a little upset. He asked if I would like some chocolate. I asked why, he said "It will make you smile and give you trust.". After finding out what he meant it was a shock to me, and after my surgery I did some research. Doctors offer chocolate to their patients before surgery, x-rays, and some even before drawing blood. Reason being is that chocolate helps calm the patient before the medical procedures, it also helps keep the mind busy so that the patient would be less nervous about all the things that can possibly go wrong.
This Point On Will Be A Fallacy To The Main Argument, It Is Simply A Side Note / Observation:
I will not fill the viewers head with propaganda as my opponent does. He constantly tells the viewers to vote con.
"reason why you're going to believe the con case over the pro case"
"that's why you'll be voting con"
Yet in round one he claims he is looking forward to an interesting debate. How can this debate be interesting if my opponent constantly blurs out to vote for con.
I will refuse to commercialize for pro, simply because I believe that it should be up to the unbiased view of the viewers to make up their mind. Not by the debaters propaganda. Also, as stated above, this is a fallacy to the argument. I am simply writing it here because my opponent has made these remarks in both arguments were he makes a claim. Since I have missed the fourth round due to my surgery I will say my opponents favorite quote here for them:
Vote Con !
"Also, my opponent does not make any sense."
Then let me clarify. You posted some list of forty reasons why sugar in candies is bad. You conceded that chocolate has sugar in it. So that list of bad things applies to both you and me, making it have virtually no impact in this debate. It doesn't mater how much sugar is there, but only the presence of it to be at risk for the forty harms. So since I'm providing the only unique harm to my opponent, sugar-based candies can be seen as healthier.
"What my opponent is suggesting is that people who eat chocolate are suicidal."
Not at all what I'm implicating. The entire premise of my position relies on when we eat chocolate, it releases endorphins and hormones into our body that could cause mood swings (to this you conceded earlier in the debate). These mood swings can lead to depression, and depression is a known cause of suicide. I'm not saying "Hey guys! Everyone who eats chocolate is a suicidal maniac!" That would be ridiculous. I'm saying that because of the hormones released by chocolate can cause mood swings, those mood swings may lead to suicide. Which is a worse harm than the forty that you listed.
My opponent is not paraphrasing my rebuttal
Yes I am.
They also state that I have made no argument for their claim of chocolate leading into suicide. This is also false.
1. No you didn't. Throwing up a list of different causes of suicide doesn't mean that chocolate can't lead to it as well.
2. Even if, I can concede to that list and say sure, they cause suicide. But nowhere in that list does it say that chocolate can't. I have provided clear evidence to show link by link my argument, and THAT is what he hasn't attacked.
If anything, chocolate is an anti depressant.
Okay, even if. Let's say chocolate was an anti-depressant. Anti-depressants work by releasing certain endorphins and hormones into your body to calm you. That still bites straight into the harms of potentially causing mood swings, which could lead to depression and then suicide. So either way, the harms are still there.
He constantly tells the viewers to vote con.
Am I not allowed to? I didn't realize that this was a rule. Sorry for trying to win the debate?
"he claims he is looking forward to an interesting debate."
Why does me wanting to win interfere with me having an interesting debate? There's no link between the two.
"this is a fallacy to the argument."
1. Why is trying to win a fallacy?
2. If trying to win is a fallacy, then we're both equally guilty of commiting it.
So this round breaks down in a few ways:
1. The BOP was even between us both to prove why one side was less healthy than the other side. The pro's only claim to this was a list of forty reasons why having sugar in candies is bad. I provided you with one unique reason, independent of sugar, as to why chocolate is bad. So either way you look at it, the harms break out into either one of two ways:
a. 41 harms to eating chocolate: 40 harms to eating just sugar
b. 1 unique harm to eating chocolate: no unique harms to eating sugar
Since I'm clearly winning the BOP there, this is the first place you can vote con.
2. I am the only one actually creating clash in this debate. My opponent never attacked any of the sources I used, only defended his own and said that I wasn't making sense. I was the only one attacking my oponent's evidence and, therefore, creating clash. So even if the debate is at a stand-still, you'll be voting con off of a risk of offense.
So the voters have two clear reasons to vote con. The pro provided none in their last speech. At this point, I see no reason why one shouldn't vote for the con debater.
I thank my opponent for this opportunity to have a fun debate, and I wish him a speedy recovery from their surgery. My thoughts go out to him and hope that he feels better.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TUF 5 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: pro forfeits a round and talks about irrelevant things. Chocolate leads to suicide? come on.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.