Opening event
Loading the latest details…
Animal agriculture uses 83% of global farmland but delivers only 18% of calories. EAT-Lancet calls for a 50-90% cut in wealthy nations — the alt-protein industry raised $16B, then stumbled. Two debaters, opposing sides — you score who makes the stronger case.
Wednesday, October 14, 2026 · 7:00 PM EDT
What's at stake
Animal agriculture accounts for 14.5% of global emissions and 83% of farmland for 18% of global calories. Whether that's enough to justify changing what billions eat.
The Matchup
Debater: To be announced
Debater: To be announced
Join the debate
Record a 60-second video on either side, or make it in writing. The strongest cases get featured before the live debate.
“Livestock uses 83% of global farmland but delivers only 18% of global calories. If wealthy nations reduced meat consumption by 50%, the freed land could sequester carbon equivalent to decades of global emissions while also halting the deforestation driving biodiversity collapse. The land-use math is not close.”
“The personal choice argument collapses when individual choices aggregate to existential-scale harms. We regulate cars, factories, and cigarettes without calling it paternalism. Food is no different when the aggregate impact includes 14.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions, antibiotic resistance, and pandemic risk from industrial animal agriculture.”
“Meat provides critical micronutrients — heme iron, B12, and complete protein — that are hardest to obtain from plant sources. Populations with the least dietary diversity and the highest rates of malnutrition cannot reduce animal-source foods on the schedule Western researchers propose without nutritional consequences those researchers will not bear.”
“The 14.5% emissions figure includes biogenic methane that cycles through the atmosphere in 12 years and net land-carbon that depends heavily on how land was previously used. Well-managed ruminants on diverse pasture have a substantially lower footprint than the headline figures from industrial-scale CAFO operations.”
The Format
Standard SuperDebate: two people, cross-examination, moderated from start to finish.
4 min · PRO · opening case
4 min · CON questions PRO
4 min · CON · opening case
4 min · PRO questions CON
3 min · PRO
3 min · CON
3 min · PRO · final case
3 min · CON · final case
— · You pick the winner
Don't miss it
The debate happens live with real-time audience voting. Get one email right before we go live, with the watch link.
Premieres
Wednesday, October 14, 2026 · 7:00 PM EDT
Open debate runs on the people who show up. Tell us how you want to be part of it.
Structured debates on the ideas that matter most. You score who makes the stronger case.
Humanity uses 1.7 Earths yearly. Degrowth economists say rich nations must shrink; others say technology can decouple growth from harm. Can the planet survive endless growth — or is degrowth a recipe for poverty? Two debaters, opposing sides — you score who makes the stronger case.
Aging kills 100,000 people every day — more than cancer and war combined. Google's Calico has invested billions in life-extension research. Should we treat aging as a disease — or accept it as part of a meaningful life? Two debaters, opposing sides — you score who makes the stronger case.
The US has spent over $1 trillion on the drug war since 1971 — overdoses still hit 107,000 in 2023. Portugal decriminalized all drugs in 2001 and saw deaths plummet. Does legalization fix it — or abandon the most vulnerable? Two debaters, opposing sides — you score who makes the stronger case.
South Korea's birth rate hit 0.72 in 2023 — a record low. Japan and Hungary pay tens of thousands per child; birthrates keep falling. Is population collapse a civilizational crisis — or a feature of modernity and freedom? Two debaters, opposing sides — you score who makes the stronger case.