Will someone ever defeat him in a debate?

The non militant vegans who only do it because their left wing friend concluded its the socialist thing to do, even though it is a form of capitalist protest and only allowed by modern capitalism, have logic like a seive.

People who came to the philosophical conclusion that veganism is the most ethical way to live out of experience and reason often have bullet proof arguments because they've challenged themselves with the same questions for years.

Meat eaters always drop into ad hominem or unfounded conspiracy claims. Just admit you're an immoral human and stop wrapping your identity up in what you eat

Its not adhominem if its 100% relevant and true.
Plus the dudes a brainlet, look at that little peanut head.

>based
>low test

pick one

Attached: YpFKVIf_d.jpg (640x834, 38K)

"I will attack what I think of the person rather than the argument"
Ad hominem is babbies first fallacy. You're never gonna make it intellectually.

no, that's why everyone runs scared these days

Attached: 1547649855673.jpg (482x484, 52K)

El goblino

More ad hominem. Into the trash you go.

Attached: 1546306039222.jpg (750x744, 102K)

I don't care

Yes. I will eat meat, regardless of what he thinks. The only way to stop me is to cripple me or my access to meat. His moralfagging does not concern me. The supposed health benefits do not concern me. Humanity was not made a herbivore but an omnivore.

>I don't give a shit about my health
That doesn't make you win a debate about health you moron

>Just admit you're an immoral human and stop wrapping your identity up in what you eat
Was this supposed to be the bait or do you not see the contradiction here?

It's not about health, it's about the morality of meat. you might win the talky-talky, but nature don't care about your debates. I'm just following my natural instincts by eating meat.

>I act on my instincts and have no rational background behind my opinions and habits
if that's the case, you're not even fit for the participation in the debate

Why is a "rational background" superior to baisc human survival instinct?

And he's on steroids and looks like shit compared to other guys on gear...
post body and timestamp

Attached: Chad CarniPinner vs virgin geargoblin.jpg (1280x720, 141K)

Dios mio

>Moral reasons don't concern me
>Logical health based concerns don't make a difference
>Therefore I will continue doing X because it's in my nature
You sound less like a human and more like a simple-minded animal. Why do you insist upon your base instincts as a standard for behavior instead of reason?

If that's him on roids, then how shit would he look without them?

Clearly meat is required for the build up of muscle mass.

>argues in favor of atherosclerosis
>not a tard amerimutt concerned about losing his burgers

>Jow Forums Health and Fitness

Morality are just feelings.
The benefits of eating meat outweigh abstinance.

If taking good care of my body means I am a simple minded animal, so be it.

Imagine believing it's actually impossible to build muscle without paying jews shekels for cow titty juice and flesh

Why are dropping ad hominem on meat eaters user?

>meat is Jewish goy believe me

>paying jews shekels for cow titty juice and flesh

I only buy local, native european farm produce. Nice try.

then why do vegan "bodybuilders" all turn in their natty cards? Hmmmm

Attached: 1547174695934.jpg (500x500, 42K)

Stay scared kike.

90% of people don't.

Not my problem.

because the debate is about what diet is superior for a modern society

you think a society built on a diet that has been decided because "our instincts tell us to" is a good way to decide things for the future of the society?

Frankie the 5 foot makeup boy

If morality is the issue, then the logical conclusion would be to stop living, and to use your body as fuel for other animals. Yet, vegans continue to exist. Comparing the impact of a vegan to that of a meat eater is like comparing two genocidal dictators kill counts. One might have less, but that doesn’t necessarily make them morally superior to the other.

Imagine actually using the Jew boogeyman to justify veganism. Don't you pay the The Chosen People when you buy your vegetable and grain?

Yes, I am entitled to kill animals to satisfy my palate and nutritional needs because 1. I want to, 2. because it is legal.

Do you honestly believe that the meat industry stops making meat every time some one decides to go vegan or stop eating meat?

The meat industry, the entire food industry, will continue to produce food at the cost of the environment and all life that inhabits it.

The problem has never been with one or the other.
The problem is and always has been the food industry.

>Blames Jews
>Shells out more for crappy pseudomeats and vitamins for his inefficient diet

Still haven't posted that body, I see
5 minutes, tick tock, faggot

Attached: GoblinoGetsMOGGED.jpg (490x357, 51K)

I think you need to go back to economics 101 if you think an industry will keep producing if nobody buys. However, that wasn’t my argument. My argument was about the perceived moral high ground that vegans like to tote about. A murderer is still a murderer, no matter how high his numbers go.

Post yours

Pretty much this. The obvious answer to the vegan moral quandary is that human life is inherently environmentally destructive and what we should focus on is overpopulation. The most ethical way of eating is to forage and hunt in-season biota

>No you
Like clockwork
Vegans have low testosterone so ladies first

Attached: 1488628110774.jpg (705x602, 65K)

>veganism is healthy goyim

Attached: 91478497-2C74-41CA-8F8C-AD13A263984F.jpg (770x412, 231K)

Sv3rige defeated him. Dick just couldn't admit it.

You think a society built on a diet that has been decided because "lmao science said its healthy and we no want hurt fluffy animals" is better than what has worked for countless centuries of human evolution and existance?

90% of my meat is from hunting, I forage mushrooms, and grow some of my own veggies in indoors aquaponics powered by solar panels and a dam generator. If I didn’t have to worry about money, I’d be 100% off grid.

>heart disease is natural
woah, profound as fuck
this must be the power of carnivore retard mentality

if their diet causes disease, that "disease" isn't really disease but a normal mechanism that kills us and perfectly natural and no need to wrry.

There's nothing ring with farming cattle. They're literally meant to turn grass into protein.

Attached: E8C04F05-2CBA-455E-91AB-FCA8417DAABA.jpg (1613x527, 310K)

>Myelin sheath deterioration is healthy
Woah must be the power of the vegan diet

Good thing I'm not a vegan or a carnivore retard on larping dumb af meme new age diets.

>meme diet

Europeans have been on keto for 600,000 years.

Me either, but if someone points out an easily preventable disease to use as an argument, but doesn’t take into account the opposing sides horrible effects, then I gotta jump on that opportunity.

It was more cyclical keto, than constant keto, but the point still stands.

Just watched the first part of his debate with Tufano on atherosclerosis. Tufano is horrible at articulating the logic but he is correct and Richard is wrong. Are most of the debates like this? This dude is just better at sophistry and the "nerd" part of debating i.e. trapping your opponent with linguistic tricks and trying to get them to pause so it looks like you "stumped" them. I have to imagine retards eat that shit up like they always have.

Attached: 1517798559622.png (549x504, 527K)

Richard traps them with fallacy through fallacy, and they aren’t articulate enough to get around it.

The modern western diet is literally a new age dumb af meme diet brainlet, its just the only one that nearly everyone follows. You're just a crowd follower, it doesn't make you intelligent.
>inb4 he uses the word balanced

>philosophical conclusion that veganism is the most ethical way
Oof

It's a goddamn shame. I feel like most low to average IQ types today usually respond to the tone of a debate rather than the actual logic. Most people would probably think Richard was right because he was "winning".

Attached: 1547593893187.png (701x520, 594K)

From a pure technical standpoint, a moderator would give him the win. From a logical one though, not so much. It is a shame how much people will base their opinions on someone’s way of speaking, rather than the content of the speech.

caucasoid humans are literally less than 100ky old, don't give a fuck what some subhuman neanderthal manlet with receding chin and bug ape eyes ate like, we already have samples of rather young european neanderthal molars with plant matter that clearly show that we never ate a 100% meat diet, ever, not even our non human ancestors did, and anyone that claims a carnivore diet is normal is a fucking dumbass, not even inuits have eaten a carnivore diet, they have always eaten plants it's literally in their fucking culture to do so.

that's fine, but I don't understand why you even mentioned the word vegan
the opposite of a stupid shit diet is not another stupid shit diet.

>meybee ev ey poast le ebig maymay ill win
Body and timestamp saying "fuck israel burn kikes"

Attached: (you).gif (480x360, 82K)

The claim isn't that ancient humans ate a 100% meat-based diet, but rather that they ate a predominantly meat-based diet and not a predominantly plant based one. Furthermore, the most important claim is that such a diet is healthier for you, regardless of what our ancestors ate.

I assumed you were the vegan poster. 1,000 apologies haseem.

explain what part of Richard's argument was wrong

JF did, though his argument was retarded

That's nice but European fat metabolism genes come from Neanderthals and the other races come are closer to chimpanzee.

>Neanderthal ancestry drives evolution of lipid catabolism in contemporary Europeans

nature.com/articles/ncomms4584

Attached: 5BDF0574-3BF9-41A6-832E-CA6A357E7961.jpg (505x685, 38K)

High fat vs high carbohydrate diets are proven to have no difference in human health. The only thing that stays the same however, is protein. Adequate protein intake and quality sources seem to be the two biggest factors other than personal tolerance.

>High fat vs high carbohydrate diets are proven to have no difference in human health.
yeah, no...

How many articles do you want?

You're the brainlet if u honestly believe a western diet is a single unique diet shared by every single person in western nations you fucking retarded dumb fuck.
We always will be omnivores, not vegans or carnivores, you cultist dumb fucking nigger.
The nations with the most balanced macronutrient ratio are the tallest and healthiest, the cause of most if not all of the diet related diseases in the west is due to overeating in general, just being obese increases your risk of all cause mortality and also shorten your lifespan.

You're the one falling for fucking fads, me I will eat a diet that's been proven to work for people of my genetic stock for countless generations.
Get fucked.
The diet varied on the season and region, and we don't even know how meat based the diet was for the most part cause plant matter degrades far faster than animal remains such as bone.
You can look at estimations but even anthropologists will tell you there's no reliable way of knowing just how meat based we were, but it's safe to say we ate a 50-50 meat-plant diet on average.

The OP was two logical fallacies: burden of proof, you inferred that he has won every debate and strawman, you manipulated the argument to make it seem like he is undefeated and holds the high ground.

You can't take six(?) population samples and make a conclusion on the entirety of the history of humankind, from a mathetmatical point of view that is completely nonsensical. To reiterate, to say that every human population that has ever existed has been rife with incidence of atherosclerosis because you have six populations that only go back to a cap of 4000 years is completely insane. At one point Richard says "based on this its safe to assume that every human population has had high incidence of atherosclerosis". Just insanity.
Also, Frank was completely correct in asking for more details on the study and Richard's heisman in that regard was baffling. Multilple times Frank reiterated that he needed to look at the data itself to make sound conclusions, which not only is the proper scientific mindset, it is logical. Richard then goes on to say that the data isn't relevant (???) and basically says "no, the only info you have on this study is my take on the abstract, that's it".
How the fuck is the data not relevant to the conclusions?? That's the entire keystone of any scientific endeavor, it's the DATA.
>Frank: I need to know what kind of diet this people were eating when they developed atherosclerosis in order to make an adequate judgement on the health of the diet.
>Richard: No you don't.
I was honestly crying I was laughing so hard at this part, the blockheadedness was obscene. Frank unfortunately didn't have the foresight to see what was being pulled on him and got heated which made it seem like he was mad because he was in the wrong, but he was correct. He never even put forward a claim, just appropiately critiqued the study and asked for more info which Richard denied him.

"found no significant difference" isn't the same as "proven to have no difference"
also, high fat is typically 40/40, while high carbohydrate is 60/20. ketogenic is

>diet proven to work

The opposite is actually true.

Fuck off retard.

Attached: 44D3E02E-BDF8-425E-8673-0095F0A2A214.png (693x426, 136K)

Complete retard, not even worth my time to engage.
How has it been proven? Are we just throwing away any conclusions about insulin?
Burden of proof isn't a logical fallacy, its a principle.

>t. Doesn't know what an Ad Hominem is

An insult is distinct from an Ad Hominem, you didn't portray an argument which was then avoided by attacking character.

Got thoroughly buttblasted by Jeff Nippard

So? Do you think evolution only follows a straight line when it comes to diet adaptation?
Neanderthals had different lifestyles and in europe adapted to extreme cold, and as far as I know meat isn't the only source of fat in the diet.
We have remains of neanderthals in europe who varied greatly in the food remains in their teeth, spanish neanderthals ate more plants than the ones in central europe, but none of them were 100% meat based at least around the time of death.
nature.com/articles/nature21674
>In contrast, no meat was detected in the diet of Neanderthals from El Sidrón cave, Spain, and dietary components of mushrooms, pine nuts, and moss reflected forest gathering2,3. Differences in diet were also linked to an overall shift in the oral bacterial community (microbiota) and suggested that meat consumption contributed to substantial variation within Neanderthal microbiota.

"fallacies equate to falsehoods"
you're a fucking retard you know that?

Chile is close to the US in obesity and it's not here. Also Mexico.

>Neanderthals had different lifestyles and in europe adapted to extreme cold, and as far as I know meat isn't the only source of fat in the diet.
The fuck else are you getting fat from? Global avocado farms?

It’s literally a fallacy in a fallacy. It’s called argument from fallacy.

You contradicted yourself.

The original claim was Europeans evolved on keto for over 600,000 years.

You claimed Neandertal ancestry didn't count.

I provided evidence showing that Europeans have more lipid metabolism Neanderthal genes than either asians or blacks, which more closely resemble chimpanzees.

>y-you're a retard
You posted 0 arguments here, as expected from a cultist dumb fuck obsessed with his new diet religion.
Good thing my country isn't there and I don't follow the average diet of the average fatty out of shape subhuman, you fucking brain dead dumb ass.
Do you even think before you post this shit? Do you seriously think the average person eats the proper ammount of calories for their body and lifestyle?
Honestly what the fuck is wrong with you?

This is what happens when a person reads a wikipage on fallacies that he then continually refers to until he has them memorized but develops no actual sense of logic or intelligence along with it.

Sv3rige did although he did not capitalize on it. The simple premise is this, if your diet lacks nutrients (like b12) it is not the optimal diet. You can supplement all you want but do not claim that your diet is superior when it would not keep you alive. Also, many of these vegan studies are bullshit. They compare the average lazy fatass with vegans. Of course vegas will look healthier. I would like to see a study that compares people that grown not only their own veggies, but raise and slaighter their own animals with vegans. I could care less about the moral arguments. If you are concered with having a negative impact on the planet and animals the best solution is to KYS prove me wrong.

so, leftist faggots?

I don't watch this dude but is it real or just a meme that he haven't lost a debate yet? Is he legit or is he the Charlie Zelenoff of youtube fitness?

> If you are concered with having a negative impact on the planet and animals the best solution is to KYS prove me wrong
Kek, you're actually right

Not exclusive to them but yeah they're the current major camp in the retard enclave

Yeah through their milk