Debate

All cities should be car restricted

Challenger won

The challenger's argument is well-structured, supported by credible evidence, and maintains objectivity, effectively highlighting the environmental and ethical concerns associated with meat consumption. The opponent's response is a non-sequitur, introducing an irrelevant personal concern that does not address the challenger's points.

Challenger

Opponent

Logic

8.0/10

2.0/10

Evidence

9.0/10

1.0/10

Objectivity

8.0/10

2.0/10

Measures unbiased, factual reasoning

Logical Fallacies

Opponent 1

red herring

The opponent's argument about personal transportation is unrelated to the environmental impact of meat consumption.

Round #1

The challenger argued that eating meat is harmful due to animal suffering and environmental pollution caused by the meat industry. The opponent's response was a personal concern about transportation, which did not address the challenger's points directly.

Challenger

Eating meat is very bad because it hurts the animals, there is a lot of polution going on because of the meat industry. Meat industry in general is very harmful

Opponent

How will I get to work then?

Logic

7.0 vs 2.0

Evidence

5.0 vs 1.0

Objectivity

6.0 vs 2.0

Debate

Breakdown

Logical Fallacies

Round #1

Challenger

Opponent