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

we should eat less junk food

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/19/2014 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 560 times Debate No: 65507
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




I think we should eat less junk food it will be better for our system and our body shapes it will also stop some bullying in schools join me eat a salad :)


I accept.

Problems with the resolution

My adversary states, in the resolution, that "we" should eat less junk food. First of all, who is the "we" in here? It seems like my adversary is stating that all people on the Earth should eat less junk food, including those who have already cut down on junk food or don't eat it at all. This causes the debate to be about whether or not all people on the face of the Earth should cut down on junk food, which is a near-impossible or plain impossible BOP to uphold.


What my opponent states is that people should cut down on junk food because it makes for a healthier body and therefore stops bullying.. However correct this might be, this statement is a weak argument. Firstly, bullies don't just make fun of fat people or even thin people who eat lots of junk food. Second, it seems that exercise does not come to mind for my opponent. Thirdly, it's for the person eating junk food to decide whether or not to cut down on junk food - it's their body.
Debate Round No. 1


tammyisright forfeited this round.


My opponent has forfeited.

Vote con.
Debate Round No. 2
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by NoMagic 1 year ago
Why are we being childish with the resolution? Any reasonable person knows what she is wanting to debate. Lets act a little reasonable. I know what she means. You guys know what she means. Just debate it. Do we really want a site that requires 4000 words to clarify the debate topic, ridiculous. Here is what you BLAHthedebator wants. Resolution. Superman is better than Spiderman. We need to clarify that one cannot type the words "Spiderman is better than Superman" and claim it has been proven. We must define Superman. We must define is. We must define better. We must define than. We must define Spiderman. We must list numerous rules in order to govern the debate. We must define the words we used to define Superman. Then we must define those words. Lets be a little reasonable. We know what she wants to debate. Just debate it, instead of trying so hard not to debate it by searching for loopholes, be just a little more mature.
Posted by JEFF1967 1 year ago
I do agree that we need to be very specific in how we word arguments. What is a fine statement in an informal conversation needs to be spelled out in formal debate.
Posted by BLAHthedebator 1 year ago
But she did not say anything about eating healthily. She merely stated that we should eat less junk food. Therefore it seems like she wants the whole world to starve. A better resolution would be "People with dieting issues should eat healthier food as a replacement to junk food."
Posted by BLAHthedebator 1 year ago
Oh wait, messing you up with my adversary, sorry!
Posted by BLAHthedebator 1 year ago
I think you posted your argument in the wrong place.
Posted by cheyennebodie 1 year ago
Eating certain substances and drinking certain substances are a perfect argument against government healthcare.Why should the responsible pay for healthcare for people who do not care about their health.

I am healthy because I eat and drink responsibly.It is not luck that some have good health and others do not. That is just the natural side of things. That does not even address the spiritual side. Corrupt , negative words. Stress and fear. There is no such thing as a causeless condition.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by NoMagic 1 year ago
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: Pro made no arguments. Con is far to knit picking with his/her objections though. We can logically infer what Pro means by the resolution. We (in general) should eat less junk food. Con should take a little more reasonable of an approach to debating. We are free to make logical inferences in order to reasonably understand the subject. That being said, Pro let a round expire. That is simply a lose and poor conduct on Pro's part.