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

If you could survive without the other, would you rather eat food(pro) or drink water?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/2/2017 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 611 times Debate No: 100507
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




Think about it. There are so many different foods. You could have whatever you feel like having, whether it's something, sweet, salty, sour, etc. If you were to choose water, you'd taste the same boring taste every day. If you were to crave something sweet, too bad. If you wanted something sour, sorry you can only have water. Wouldn't you rather have diversity in your diet? Food is the better choice.


Water would be clearly preferable over food if there is a choice.

1) Food contains water. With no water, you couldn't eat a lot of food, which would severely limit your diet so not only could you not drink water you could also not eat food with water in it

2) You would be very thirsty all the time. Who wants food if their throat is so parched they can't talk? You'd be longing for a cool drink of water long before sweet or salty food. Furthermore, exercise would be super unpleasant because you wouldn't be able to refresh yourself with water or any water-containing food.

3) My opponent asked, "Wouldn't you rather have diversity in your diet?" No. It is clearly preferable to have a single dependable resource than one that changes and fluctuates. As I've said, even eating is unpleasant without water, so this 'diverse diet' wouldn't occur without water.

4) Water outweighs any gain of flavor on food on magnitude: the good of having water outweighs the bad of not having flavor. It outweighs on probability: Water is nearly always available. And, it outweighs on cost: how much money would you save not buying food? Water is cheap at water fountains nearly everywhere. Food is not.

Thus, please vote con!
Debate Round No. 1
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
>Reported vote: TallSpider// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con had a good argument.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn"t explain conduct. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to do more than simply restate the point allocation.
Posted by Annie_Debate 3 years ago
Ok, so I couldn't vote because I have not completed 3 rounds but I'll post an RFD anyways just in case either side wants it:
I ended up voting Con because she pointed out that there isn't much food that doesn't contain water. With that restriction in mind she then provided that if you can't drink water, then the only food you can eat would be dry, which convinced me that no one wants to eat dry food. I think Pro could've definitely made more arguments, or extended the debate. Pro could have put a restriction on Con saying the debate was food vs. water. It doesn't matter what type of food, even ones that are partially liquified. Then there would've been more to Pro to vote for.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
>Reported vote: LIFEISNEVEREASY// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Conduct, S&G, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Cannot agree more.

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD. The voter is required to explain their point allocations. Expressing personal agreement with one side is not a sufficient explanation for any of them.
Posted by Sinque 3 years ago
You wouldn't be thirsty because you would evolve if you don't need it. Besides, most foods don't have water in it.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.