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

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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.