Oral Immunotherapy
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
- 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
Debating about whether OIT is practical or not
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.
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.
ggwp
ago
Club stated a lot of false points and did not write many points
WDYM
Okay
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
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: [Wylted] // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
************************************************************************
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.
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
I wouldn't mind but I don't know about WP
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.
Hate to break it to ya but Wikipedia is not reliable.
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
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.
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.
Getting dem high ranks
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?