Instigator / Pro
21
1490
rating
7
debates
42.86%
won
Topic
#1831

DTaP vaccines for children under 6 months of age may cause autism.

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
9
0
Better sources
6
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
2

After 3 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...

DrSpy
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
12,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
11
1476
rating
4
debates
25.0%
won
Description

The DTaP vaccine is known as the Generic Name: Diphtheria and Tetanus Toxoids and Pertussis Vaccine Adsorbed.
The CDC recommends. (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/dtap-tdap-td/hcp/recommendations.html)

"Give infants and children 5 doses of DTaP. Give one dose at each of these ages: 2 months, 4 months, 6 months, 15 through 18 months, and 4 through 6 years. Use DT for infants and children who should not receive acellular pertussis-containing vaccines."

The debate can be won by the CON if they can demonstrate that there is a reputable study focusing on the DTaP vaccine, and specifically on the ages 6 - 7 months and under; as it related to autism.

Statements made by organizations like the CDC are not evidence on their own and need to be corroborated. The debater will need to demonstrate their study is reputable, which includes elements like the quality of the journal article, testing methodology, volume, number of times cited, etc. The judges will give weight to the quality of the references/articles and determine if they are persuasive.

Debaters are permitted to use findings within studies, provided that full reference to the citation is given such that the context can be understood and rebuffed if required.

Both debaters may agree to forfeit rounds, by passing on a round and that will not be judged against them

This is not a debate about efficacy, the politics of vaccines, or a vax anti-vax stance. This should be a very easy debate to win. The evidence is either available or it is not.

I think I have bit off more than I can chew here. Let's see.

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:

RFD in Mayberry

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:

What this debate comes down to, unfortunately, is a skewed definition of the word "may". The way that Pro frames it in R2 is as much actual argument as it gets, which is a big problem for Con. Pro puts the entire burden of proof on Con, claiming that it's up to Con to prove with absolute certainty that DTaP vaccines do not cause autism. Con does disagree with Pro's definition, saying it makes no sense, but provides no reason to support that... which is why this is so frustrating. Con could have said that science rarely proves absolutes. Con could have argued that proving a negative (in this case, that something under no circumstances has any association whatsoever with a possible side-effect) is virtually impossible. Con could have argued that there is also a burden on Pro - namely, to show that there is some evidence somewhere that supports the link. Generally, the phrase "may cause ______" tends not to be applied to a drug without any proof that the drug causes that side-effect.

Without a solid response to how Pro defines "may" within this debate, which comes with a cited definition, Con's case is an impossible uphill battle. Con would have had to present studies and analyze them deeply to show that they excluded any possibility of a link between DTaP vaccines and autism, but after the first round where he took a couple of sentences from each to use as proof, Con does little to support his own case. Pro puts forth some pretty basic challenges that, at least within the definitions he's winning on this debate, ensure that none of these papers is effective against his case. This is a solid spate of evidence, and it deserves its due, but a lack of analysis on Con's part and the key definition of "may" ruin any chance they had of being effective.

Regardless of any personal feelings I have on this topic, Pro clearly won this debate.

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:

RFD in comments.

numbers 10-12.