Instigator / Pro
12
1503
rating
26
debates
46.15%
won
Topic
#1083

Oral Immunotherapy

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
6
Better sources
2
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...

WaterPhoenix
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
2
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
14
1512
rating
12
debates
54.17%
won
Description

Debating about whether OIT is practical or not

ggwp

ago
Club stated a lot of false points and did not write many points
WDYM

-->
@Wylted

Okay

-->
@WaterPhoenix

Both of you had issues to be honest.

I have read the debate like ten times. A single contadiction does not mean much he automatically loses on arguments. I am not going to be comfortable weighing arguments. I have merely been going through unvoted debates today and trying to ensure no debate goes unvoted. I will consider removing my vote since it does not judge arguments if you get a few competent votes who do judge the arguments.

Club stated a lot of false points and did not write many points.

We are not enemies and I planned on rereading arguments a few more times in an attempt to better understand them. I need to put pen to paper to decise though

-->
@Wylted

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: [Wylted] // Mod action: [Not Removed]

>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.

************************************************************************

-->
@Wylted

He says in the debate as a response to pro saying there is some risks to OIT
"There is no risk within OIT"
Then later on goes on to list the risks of OIT things such as anaphylactic shock

If you could add me with arguments, that would be nice because WP contradicted. I hope that we won't become enemies on the site just because of Wikipedia.

Club if the wikipedia entry is unreliable, point out what facts it got wrong. If you think none of the facts he points out using wikipedia is wrong than it is stupid to call this instance unreliable.

-->
@Barney
@Club

Sure you don't know about me Club I mean it's not like you have me on hangouts right? Also, Ragnar, I wouldn't mind but I don't know about Club

-->
@Barney

I wouldn't mind but I don't know about WP

-->
@Club
@WaterPhoenix

Would you two mind redoing this with either a third round or actually starting in R1? ... based on the flow of comments, more rounds might be warrnted.

-->
@WaterPhoenix

Hate to break it to ya but Wikipedia is not reliable.

-->
@Club

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy
I also said it was a fair tradeoff.

None of your points actually proved anything towards con, I enjoyed debating with you, but your arguments were too weak.

Environmental allergies (allergens that are not ingested) are not curable by OIT, so I'd say it's a fair tradeoff.
EA's are cured by shots

-->
@WaterPhoenix

You don't sound like Con at all, you haven't made any arguments against OIT! Vote for Pro. The Nirvana Fallacy is basically that a clear solution is better than unrealistic solutions.

-->
@Club

As this is a two-round debate, you should've started with your points instead of waiving ever first round, or it would be a big waste of time.

as this is only a 2 round debate, you should've replied with your points, or it would be a big waste of time.

-->
@zedvictor4

Getting dem high ranks

-->
@Club

One would assume that if OIT works, then it is a practical solution to a known problem.

Otherwise it would be a complete waste of time.

So wherein lies the debate?