Vaccines are safe. Anti-vaxxers like DrSpy are dangerous.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 4 votes and with 9 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
No information
There is no significant correlation between exposure to antigens through vaccines and risk of developing a non-vaccine targeted infection.
After performing the meta-analysis of both the five cohort studies and the five case-control studies, authors found no evidence of a link between vaccine receipt and risk of developing autism or ASDs. This conclusion stands when authors looked at specific MMR vaccines, cumulative mercury dosage, and thimerosal exposure, and any connection to ASDs.
They found evidence to reject a causal relationship between MMR vaccine and autism, MMR vaccine and type I diabetes, and DTaP vaccine and type I diabetes
Data suggest that MMR vaccination is not associated with an increased risk of pervasive developmental disorders.
The study provides evidence against the association of autism with either MMR or a single measles vaccine.
Anti-Vaccination Movement Causes a Deadly Year in the U.S.From Taliban fighters to California soccer moms, those who choose not to vaccinate their children against preventable diseases are causing a public health crisis.
Measles Outbreak in Unvaccinated and Partially Vaccinated Children and Adults in the United States and Canada (2018-2019): A Narrative Review of CasesA potential driving factor to the increased cases maybe because fewer children have been vaccinated over the last number of years in both countries. This article is a narrative review of cases discussing the measles outbreak among partially vaccinated and unvaccinated children and adults in the United States and Canada in 2018 and 2019.
Vaccine hesitancy – the reluctance or refusal to vaccinate despite the availability of vaccines – threatens to reverse progress made in tackling vaccine-preventable diseases. Vaccination is one of the most cost-effective ways of avoiding disease – it currently prevents 2-3 million deaths a year, and a further 1.5 million could be avoided if global coverage of vaccinations improved.
- There are technically two resolutions. One seeks to argue whether or not vaccines are safe, and the other seeks to argue whether or not anti-vaxxers are dangerous.
- This debate directly cites another one that took place. This is because Pro mentions DrSpy in the two-fold resolution and in his R1 argument. Thus, it allows both debaters to openly cite the debate both parties had, therefore the voter should read said debate for greater context.
He lists five sources that associate with vaccines being safe, and three that associate with anti-vaxxers serving as a dangerous population of people. They don't, however, back up any argumentation on Pro side whatsoever.
While vaccines may not cause autism, they are not as safe as the general public is led to think and come with dangerous risks.
One such risk is Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS), which is a disorder caused by nearly vaccines alone. 3,000 to 6,000 people in the US get diagnosed with GBS every year
Each year in the United States, an estimated 3,000 to 6,000 people develop GBS. Most people fully recover from GBS, but some have permanent nerve damage.Anyone can develop GBS, but people older than 50 are at greatest risk. In addition, about two-thirds of people who get GBS do so several days or weeks after they have been sick with diarrhea or a lung or sinus illness.
A child can develop a low-grade fever after a vaccination. The fever, not the vaccination, causes the seizure.
the math here is simple.
I say the vaccines are safe, the studies show they are save. Opponent agree they are associated with safe.I say anti-vaxxers are dangerous, I show three examples, Opponent agrees the sources are a match.Opponent has the fucking nerve to say they should win a round, because they are overcomplicating it. Vaccines are safe - studies show. Anti-vaxxers are dangerous - studies show.What argument do you need? It is very clear. Word games wont cut it.
Something with dangerous risks does not make it them not safe. Cars, trains, planes, foods, drugs, sports, LIFE!! Life is full of risks. My opponent says they are a clairvoyant, because they know what the public thinks. Sure there are risks, its a needle, and needles can hurt. But to try to imply that something that has an element of danger is not safe makes no sense. We "the general public" use the word safe in a way that includes risks. My opponent said the measure is general public, so that is the definition of safe.
Now onto danger. My opponent says they are not dangerous because of herd immunity. If that was a case then why do my studies show that "they are causing a health crisis". And one of my studies shows that partially vaccinated is a problem. So getting a needle at 2 months does not solve problem. You gotta get all the vaccines and boosters to get and be treatable. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/index.html
- Vaccines, while they can be safe as a whole, provide debilitating health risks to those who take it. One such example is GBS, which is causes your nerves to be attacked by IMMUNE CELLS. While rare, it's a debilitating risk that you can get solely through immunized cells. Another example is febrile seizures. Pro made a point about how the fever following vaccination causes the seizure, but what he fails to understand is that any fever without vaccination doesn't cause the seizure. Why run the risk of getting seizures if you don't want to get vaccinated?
- Anti-vaxxers are not dangerous people. The only reason why they are seen as dangerous is because of people like Pro who want to tell anti-vaxxers how to live their lives. The motivation behind the anti-vax movement is not to cause distress or harm to others, but to protect themselves from the dangers of vaccines (be it religious, scientific, etc.). Anti-vaxxers are also not obligated to get vaccinated if their community/living area is already vaccinated to begin with, hence herd immunity. 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.
Pro looses because of their poor conduct....Idiot....Fucking....Asshole....
Need I say more?
Argument: Pro cites sources, which is good for the second judging point, but offers little critical thinking by argument, whereas Con has valid argument to support claims. For example, Pro's sources are expected to provide the discussion for both Pro's debate objectives, that vax are safe, but that anti-vaxxers are dangerous. It does not help that pro attacks a non-participant in the debate. points to Con
Sources: Both pro and Con provide adequate sourcing. Although more sources are given by Pro, they are expected to also provide Pro's argument, whereas Con actually uses sources to support his argument. points shared.
S&G: Pro drops the F-bomb in round 2; to me, automatic failure, but other profanity scattered around Pro's argument do not help her cause. point to Con
Conduct: I have two issues with Pro: 1. pro treats Dr.Spy, who is not party to this debate, with contempt in the debate title, and round 1. 2. Although I do not typically consider any comments in that section as relevant to the debate, Pro apparently engaged in vote rigging by the claim in post #3, "I already have votes lined up against you purely based on the topic!! HAHAHAH" point to Con
FORWARD (commentary, not really part of the vote):
I’m a former combat medic who took my job very seriously (I got in trouble for reading too many medical journals… that’s the army for you).
Vaccinations are a safety measure, which is not without risk. They are safer than not getting them, about like wearing a seat belt in a car. This means that in general terms they are safe, that is not how argumentation went inside this debate.
Anti-vaxxers (probably not ones like DrSpy) are as a group dangerous to people who cannot receive vaccines. I did not spot this obvious argument.
VOTE:
1. Vaccines are safe
A host of them being safe for autism, challenged by them occasionally having other risks such as was seen with the swine influenza vaccine in 1976-1977.
Pro counters that “to imply that something that has an element of danger is not safe makes no sense.” And further claims https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15562126 does not exist (this exemplifies why you don’t jump to cussing people out, when the actual error with the source should have been explained).
Seizures were also mentioned, which pro seems to defend that the vaccinations cause a fever, and it’s a fever that causes the seizures.
2. Anti-vaxxers are dangerous
“probable carriers of disease” with an appeal to the children, vs they might object for religious reasons. Plus a reminder they are not dangerous to anyone vaccinated.
While a case could have been made they’re dangerous to themselves, I do not see it.
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points.
I generally agree with con as to the flawed R1; even while I’ll still call it good research.
P2 was pretty much tied, and P1 favors con. Nearly the opposite of how I expected this to go.
Sources:
I was going to give this to pro, but the denial of the existence of sources, greatly harmed pro’s credibility in this area.
Conduct:
when one side opens the debate with insults “Let see if you try to manipualte the facts like that dishonest asshole” [sic], it does not bode well. R2 had more short paragraphs along the same: “the worst thin, is this anti-vaxxer lies. Completely making shit to try to win” [sic]. I thought that would do it, but adding a made up bit: “My opponent says they are a clairvoyant.”
Whereas con front loads praise for pro’s effort “While Pro does a good job in…” This alone would never be enough for the point, but it must be listed for the comparison.
Regarding the argument Pro highlighted some "serious" effects of non vaccination, and Con highlighted some rarer lesser effects of vaccinations. Unfortunately Con pooped in her own pie. Right after criticising her opponents use of citations. Con went and provided a Citation which probably constitutes to handing the argument to Pro on a plate. However Con did argue "well" for vaccinations in rare cases having side effects. Just aswell as Pro argued for the serious effects on non vaccination. So will leave at a tie. But Exile has admitted her error regards to the source issue, where her source said the opposite of what she claimed. I understand she says this was an error. it is an unfortunate error, and a bad one. But in sports and games errors do get punished. A footballer cannot turn to a ref, and say, oh please, bring that back, i made an error.
On the otherhand Pro did show some bad conduct. Towards doctor spy, and calling him an idiot.
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
It is annoying when we do that. I done the samething myself on a debate girrr
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.
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.
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
"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.
You may be interested in reading the opening post i made on the new "dtap" thread.
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
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."
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.