Instigator / Pro
17
1476
rating
4
debates
25.0%
won
Topic
#1844

Vaccines are safe. Anti-vaxxers like DrSpy are dangerous.

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
12
Better sources
8
6
Better legibility
3
4
Better conduct
0
4

After 4 votes and with 9 points ahead, the winner is...

Exile
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
26
1543
rating
8
debates
75.0%
won
Description

No information

-->
@Exile

I left the argument at a tie. I left my own personal opinion out of that aswell. As my personal opinion would have been to hand it to Jackle. However you argued just aswell for non vaccinations, as Jackle argued "for" vaccinations. You admitted your error regarding the source. And i sympathise with that. I have made an error when i provided the wrong bleedin quote, and pressed publish. Proper palm face....But in games and sport, errors are what get us punished. I also acknowledged Jackles objectionable remarks regarding DrSpy. So all in all, it is pretty much a draw. 6-5 to Jackle is neither her nor there. So i did you both a favour

-->
@Exile

It is annoying when we do that. I done the samething myself on a debate girrr

-->
@Nevets

As for the article, you’re right. I posted the wrong one after doing excruciating research to find a single source online that will openly defend anti-vaxxers. Regardless, the article isn’t meant to directly back up any claims I made, but is (or would have been) there for you to get a clear idea about the movement and it’s motivations.

So I’ll bite the bullet on that. It shouldn’t enough to make me lose though.

-->
@Nevets

With all due respect, even though TheJackle’s sources might be credible they don’t back up an argument. His entire side of the debate consisted of giving us sources and simply saying he’s right. He has the warranted information, but has never made any claim or impact whatsoever.

This is how a proper argument should be crafted: “Vaccines are safe, because they are a key contributor to strengthening our immune systems against terrible diseases. According to (insert source here) it shows (insert statistic here), and shows vaccines are safe. Because of this, everyone can be healthier and more prepared against any detrimental diseases.”

Notice how the first sentence makes a claim, the second one backs up the claim with evidence, and the third one tells you why this argument matters. Hardly any of that is seen on Pro’s side of the debate. Regardless if it’s something a lot of people do (which I still find hard to believe myself) you can’t just use sources and expect them to do your arguing for you.

-->
@Exile

Reagrding this link here however where you said "There's no obligation, and no harm done. To find out more about the anti-vax movement, follow this link: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-33774181."

Your own link does not support what you said. i read it. The report would cause outrage in anyone not getting vaccinated.

From your own article ""They don't see that so they don't know, so they say, 'What's the big deal? It's a rash, you know, it won't be my kid.' But people forget what childhood death is and what infantile mortality is, people forget how many children died or were left with encephalitis or terrible brain diseases that caused mental retardation and people to be institutionalised for the rest of their life from measles."

This article is scathing of anti-vaxxers

-->
@Exile

"Pro expects to have the studies that he cites to do the arguing for him, when that's clearly what sources aren't for. Instead of using sources to back up/support an argument, Pro simply lists sources, expects people to read them whole, expects them to outline and argument, and expects them to win the debate for him."

TBH Exile, that is what the vast majority do.
Write something in their own words. Stick a link next to it. Then you open the link to an article with thousands of words.
But there is a reason for this, it is because rarely do the articles 100% say what is being claimed. In certain circumstances, though rare, the article is not even regarding the same topic as what the person linked too.
I have however checked TheJackles sources, and they do pretty much say what she says.
Though i agree. Is kind of pooping in your own pie when you dont do a simple thing like copy and paste the quote.
No-one should be expected to simply take someones word for it that the article says that, just because there is a link there.

-->
@TheJackle

You may be interested in reading the opening post i made on the new "dtap" thread.

-->
@TheJackle

Hi Jackie. I am also new here. This is a great site. But i have learnt a few lessons this week. I also went in to debates assuming it would be conducted openly and honestly. I have also learnt you need to be aware when taking on debates. A person arguing in favour of "evil over good" for example, should be easy pickings, However they narrow it down in scope so much that they might just be able to provide no other argument other than "you failed to prove anything". In reality, this is not a good argument. And no argument could ever prove that evil is morally better than good. Proving this would take more than a good argument. It would require an "extraordinary argument" with "extraordinary evidence". But i would not worry Jackie if you feel you lost a debate that is equal to "evil" preceding over "good". But it wasn't. Anyone can see it was just a play on words preceding over a newby.
Instead of becoming angry, i would suggest before starting debates you pay some attention to the description and make sure you clarify that this is an "honest debate" and define what you mean by honest.
That is what i will be doing in future. I am working on my description just now, and one of the main focuses will be on the requirement of my opponent to also have expectations to not just disprove my claims, but also to prove their own counter arguments. And that it is expected they do also have counter arguments of their own, which they should be attempting to prove and support with quoted citation.
You might also want to include before publishing your debate, that wordplay arguments should not be assumed as being a good debate strategy. The onus is not just on you to "prove" your argument. But also for your opponent to provide a counter argument that can be weighed up against your own.
If we wish to have professional debates then we must make clear in description.
But it is too late for you to do this now. But good luck. I wont be voting on this however as i by me posting this to you, it is too obvious that i am biased towards your side of the argument

Jeepers everyone tries to overcomplicate and manipulate here.

Well dont try the same manipulation games that DrSpy did. I already have votes lined up against you purely based on the topic!! HAHAHAH Good luck

-->
@TheJackle

It's too late to make the resolution into a single clause, so you should seek to quickly establish some measure of support for each that you have.

A guide which you may find useful (snippet below): https://tiny.cc/DebateArt

"Writing A Strong Resolution
The topic is usually synonymous with resolution (if not, clarify in the detailed description).
Be precise to the debate you wish to have, and ideally make it a single clause statement.

If a resolution contains multiple clauses, pro has not met BoP until each are supported.
If the clauses would support each other, pick one for the resolution, and use the other(s) as supporting contentions.

The difficulty in proving the resolution ties both to the topic, and any qualifier statements included within the resolution. Absolutes (words like "always" and "never") are most hard to prove, complete uncertainties (words like "maybe" and "possible") are least hard to prove."

-->
@TheJackle

I’m not anti-bad but I read the debate you and DrSpy has and I’m willing to play devil’s advocate. Brace yourself.