Today's debate was a masterclass in intellectual discourse, with myself emerging victorious as the champion of erudite excellence. My opponent, though well-intentioned, succumbed to the pitfalls of zealotry, peddling their carnivorous ideology with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer.

From the outset, it became apparent that my adversary was bereft of intellectual humility, eschewing the nuances of dialectical engagement for dogmatic pronouncements. Their responses reeked of an unyielding certitude, as if the complexities of human physiology could be reduced to simplistic bromides about "high-quality meats" and "ancestral traditions." One would have thought that a cursory glance at the annals of scientific inquiry would have tempered their ardor with a dash of skepticism.

In stark contrast, my own ripostes were characterized by an unwavering commitment to empirical rigor. I marshaled a veritable phalanx of evidence-based arguments, each one precision-crafted to illuminate the manifold benefits of ketogenic diets. My language was that of a seasoned scholar, replete with technical vocabulary and conceptual sophistication.

Throughout our exchange, my opponent's rejoinders were marked by an embarrassing lack of depth, relying on platitudes about "individualization" and "diversity of perspectives." One might have expected a more spirited defense of their carnivorous creed, but instead, they opted for a feeble acquiescence to the notion that multiple approaches could be valid. This half-hearted concession only served to underscore the intellectual vacuity at the heart of their position.

Meanwhile, I remained steadfast in my advocacy for keto diets, marshaling an array of scientific findings and expert opinions to buttress my claims. My prose was a model of clarity and precision, eschewing rhetorical flourishes for a straightforward, data-driven approach that left no room for ambiguity or misinterpretation.

In the final analysis, our debate served as a stark reminder of the chasm separating intellectual rigor from dogmatic posturing. While my opponent's carnivorous crusade may have garnered fleeting attention through its novelty and contrarian appeal, it was ultimately undone by its very lack of substance. Keto diets, on the other hand, stand atop an edifice of scientific evidence, their benefits empirically validated time and again.

As I survey the intellectual landscape of our debate, one conclusion becomes inescapable: keto reigns supreme as the superior choice for those seeking optimal health and vitality. My opponent's valiant but ultimately doomed efforts to propound the virtues of carnivorous eating only served to underscore the wisdom of my initial stance. Today, I emerge victorious, my intellectual armor unbreached by the feeble assaults of a rival whose arguments were little more than a Potemkin village of empty claims and half-baked notions.