Instigator / Pro
Points: 12

Oral Immunotherapy

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 2 votes the winner is ...
WaterPhoenix
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Health
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
Points: 14
Description
Debating about whether OIT is practical or not
Round 1
Published:
I waive

Published:
Ay, you waive every single first round. Fine, then I'll cite my sources and set up the definitions.

OIT (Oral Immunotherapy) is a method of giving immunotherapy by mouth. It is used to increase tolerance rates (desensitizing the person to the allergen) by feeding the allergen to the patient.

Sources:


Round 2
Published:
I was waiving to see your points. Well then, OIT is very beneficial to the patient as it may cure lethal, or near-lethal allergies. Some may say a risk is taken, but doesn't every good thing take risks? Like chemotherapy, surgery, and vaccines. There is currently no way else to cure these allergies except for shots, which cure different allergens that are not ingested, so this brings up the nirvana fallacy. There's barely any reason why OIT is bad, like there's barely any reason that Vaccines are bad.
Published:
Responses:
OIT is very beneficial to the patient as it may cure lethal, or near-lethal allergies.
OIT can only cure IgE related allergies which are only one type of allergy causes.

Some may say a risk is taken, but doesn't every good thing take risks? 
There is no risk within OIT, there is only the fact that most of the time it has an 80% success rate, meaning that it works only 4/5 times.
There is currently no way else to cure these allergies except for shots
This is false. There is another type of immunotherapy known as sublingual immunotherapy which, similar to OIT, uses the mouth but uses tablets.
so this brings up the nirvana fallacy
Do you understand what the nirvana fallacy is? The nirvana fallacy is comparing real things with a perfect idealized counterpart that isn't real. So no this does not bring up the nirvana fallacy.
There's barely any reason why OIT is bad, like there's barely any reason that Vaccines are bad.
Firstly there are reasons OIT is bad, and secondly vaccines? Excuse me but I thought we were talking about OIT here not vaccines. Forgive me if you misunderstood me somewhere and thought I was going against vaccines but I wasn't.
shots, which cure different allergens that are not ingested
which cure different allergens that are not ingested
Environmental allergies (allergens that are not ingested) are not curable by OIT, so I'd say it's a fair tradeoff.
Claim:
OIT isn't a "cure" for allergies as many make it out to be. It is just a form of desensitization that allows the patient to eat the food without getting an allergic reaction. But here's the catch, the patient has to eat the allergen daily even if he/she is desensitized to the allergen, and this isn't even accounting for the ~40 weeks to get there! Also, to my knowledge, OIT does not even cure my allergy, seafood. Another thing is, as aforementioned, OIT does not work for patients with Eosinophilic Esophagitis, which is another form of allergy, Irritable Bowel Syndrome, and Celiac disease. OIT isn't completely safe either. Severe allergic reactions occur in 1-10% of patients on OIT. Also, the rate of anaphylaxis, an allergic reaction that may cause death from severe swelling, is 5%! And on top of all that to even start OIT, the patient needs to be 4 years old! These are the reasons why OIT is not a good option when taking allergy medications.

Additional Sources used:

Added:
ggwp
Contender
#22
Added:
ago
Club stated a lot of false points and did not write many points
WDYM
Instigator
#21
Added:
--> @Wylted
Okay
Contender
#20
Added:
--> @WaterPhoenix
Both of you had issues to be honest.
#19
Added:
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.
#18
Added:
Club stated a lot of false points and did not write many points.
Contender
#17
Added:
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
#16
Added:
--> @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.

************************************************************************
#15
Added:
--> @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.
Instigator
#14
Added:
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.
#13
Added:
--> @Ragnar, @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
Contender
#12
Added:
--> @Ragnar
I wouldn't mind but I don't know about WP
Instigator
#11
Added:
--> @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.
#10
Added:
--> @WaterPhoenix
Hate to break it to ya but Wikipedia is not reliable.
Instigator
#9
Added:
--> @Club
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy
I also said it was a fair tradeoff.
Contender
#8
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
For this debate, both sides should be showing me why I should vote for them, by showing the positives and negatives of OIT and showing why the negatives outweigh the positives : or vice versa. Pro here presents a very limited set of good things, pro provides a general list of bad things: but neither side do any comparison for why it is on balance good or bad.
Pro says it’s a cure for allergies, con claims its not a cure and has downsides: but I don’t know whether either sides ointsnoutwoegh the other because no one presents any real substantive analysis.
As a result, I will award this as a tie as neither side are able to affirm or refute the resolution.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Neither person even argued for the resolution just merely touched on it. Here is one thing I found especially retarded about Con's argument.
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. Pro argues there is some good and some bad that come with it but doesn't tell us how we should consider the good and bad impacts. Con argues that there is some good things and bad things that com with OIT but does not tell us how to weigh them. Both sides need to work on linking their arguments to the resolution. I will award con points on sources because he atleast attempted to provide evidence of his claims. I am tempted to award conduct as well because of the lame skipping of round one but will refrain.