Instigator / Pro
Points: 17

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

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 4 votes the winner is ...
Exile
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Health
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Required rating
1
Contender / Con
Points: 26
Description
No information
Round 1
Published:
I am gonna say vaccines are safe and ant-vxxers are dangerous.  I thought DrSpy was the only idiot out there.  Let see if you try to manipualte the facts like that dishonest asshole.

SAFETY

I will list 5 studies, and their summary to start.  DrSpy did a crybaby thing cause I listed 12 before.  You can also include them as evidence if you want.  Up to you..

STUDY 1:

There is no significant correlation between exposure to antigens through vaccines and risk of developing a non-vaccine targeted infection.

STUDY 2:

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. 

STUDY 3:

Clayton E, et al. Institute of Medicine. The National Academy of Sciences. 201

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

STUDY 4:


Smeeth L, et al., Lancet 2004; 364(9438): 963-9

Data suggest that MMR vaccination is not associated with an increased risk of pervasive developmental disorders.

STUDY 5:


Budzyn D, et al., The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal. 2010; 29(5): 397-400  

The study provides evidence against the association of autism with either MMR or a single measles vaccine. 

I show that study after study shows vaccines are safe.  

ANTI VAXXERS DANGEROUS

People who don't get vaccinated are then probable carriers of disease, as they dont have an immune system t fight it. they can then infect people who cant get vaccinated like children.

Here are a list of incidents where unvaccinated people cause injury, or death.  Therefore they are dangerous.


REPORT 1:

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.




REPORT 2:

Measles Outbreak in Unvaccinated and Partially Vaccinated Children and Adults in the United States and Canada (2018-2019): A Narrative Review of Cases  

A 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.

REPORT 3:

The WHO says vaccine hesitancy is a top 10 world crisis, and 1.5million lives are lost every year because of unvaccinated children.   

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. 


It's irrefutable.  
Published:
Before I go into arguments, there are things that should be considered when voting on this debate. 

  • 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. 
While Pro does a good job in outlining sources for the first round, his biggest weakness thus far is providing absolutely no argumentation. Info-bombs can prove to be a strategic and aggressive of getting a point across, but in this case Pro has yet to make a "point." 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. Pro never gives us a claim or argument to latch onto (other than what is said in the resolution), and he more importantly doesn't tell us why any argumentation on his side should matter over or trump Con's at the end of the day. The only argumentation we see is a hardly flushed-out word spill on how anti-vaxxers can be possible carriers of disease, which is simply never elaborated upon.

Ergo, his sources in R1 are useless and this round has essentially been handed over to Con. 

Now onto my points. I'll start with the former of the resolution. Con's thesis statement is as follows: While vaccines may not cause autism, they are not as safe as the general public is led to think and come with dangerous risks.

Pro never specifies to us the degree as to how vaccines are safe, which is an error on his end. However, his sources err on the argumentative side claiming that vaccines are completely safe in an autism context. What they don't mention is the fact that vaccines do come with other health risks that are commonly overlooked. 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, and while it is rare it still allows itself to prevalent among vaccination. For context, it was caused by a string of vaccination alone in 1976 which led to an increased risk unlike anything seen before [1].

There is also the risk of seizures. Research has shown that there is an increased risk of seizures after being vaccinated with the Measles, Mumps and Rubella (MMR) vaccine. Infants were shown to undergo seizures after 7-10 days of vaccination, and the risk was shown to increase to 1 out of every 2,300 who are vaccinated. Research is still being done to determine possible alternative causes, but no other causes have been shown to this day [2].

The "VaCcInEs DoN't CaUsE aUtIsM," rhetoric-outrage has completely misguided those who are not as knowledgeable about vaccines to lead them into thinking they are completely safe. Proof of this is in the previous debate Pro had with DrSpy. The toxicity in Pro's tone towards someone who has his health at this own interest (regardless of motivation), properly demonstrates this. By deliberately trying to beat a dead horse, the attention and beratement is on the dead horse rather than the "living horse" that deserves more attention than it has. 

This segues well into the latter half of the resolution. The thesis for this portion is as follows: Anti-vaxxers are not dangerous people, but are made out to be dangerous by people like Pro.

Anti-vaxxers are not "dangerous" people. Their actions may be portrayed as dangerous by people like Pro, but people like Pro completely miss the motivations behind anti-vaxxers. People abstain from vaccines not because they seek to do damage but rather because they have the autonomy to determine what is best for their body and the bodies around them. Such motivations can include religious ones, where it might be sinful to have chemicals like vaccines administered to the body. I'm not saying vaccines are a sin in any religion, but they could be a motivation and it's a fair one to have. 

Pro lightly touches on the aspect that anti-vaxxers are a public health threat. While this can be true for those who have YET to be vaccinated, Pro completely ignores the greater population of those who are in fact vaccinated. A good example of this is herd immunity. A scenario where anti-vaxxers infect a huge population of people wouldn't work in a neighborhood/community of people who are already vaccinated. Thus, those who are not vaccinated can be indirectly protected by vaccine diseases, and in the event there was an infection they wouldn't spread it to those are have been vaccinated. A study done by the CDC show exactly how many infants are receiving vaccinations and which types, which roughly average out to over 90% [3].

Babies are vaccinated just two months after being born. Do the math; there's hardly any risk. 

Finally, the biggest problem that I have with the aspect of anti-vaxxers being dangerous is because it's an attempt vilify a group of people regardless of their intentions. What makes someone anti-vax is not only the action of not getting vaccinated, but the ideology that comes with it. The ideology isn't one that enforces or calls for violence. It's one that calls for individual safety of the self and those closest to them. It's one that has good intentions to protect loved ones. Thus, people like Pro are obsessed with the so-called stupidity that anti-vaxxers seem to have and fail to see the bigger picture, regardless whether or not they agree with it. The toxicity from Pro's former debate speaks for itself. 

This was a rushed argument, but the math here is simple. Unless if Pro comes up with any argumentation of his own instead of dumping sources and somehow letting them do the talking for him, he's in big trouble. 


SOURCES:
Round 2
Published:
Vaccines are safe.  My opponent says that I did a good job showing they are safe.  I'm gonna ignore the gender assumption.

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.
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.


While vaccines may not cause autism, they are not as safe as the general public is led to think and come with dangerous risks.

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. 

But the worst thin, is this anti-vaxxer lies.  Completely making shit to try to win.

I quote:

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
Where is the source?  Now like a proper debate  I will say something with a source, and not pulled out of my ass:

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. 

Notice my source is actually fucking real.  And from the CDC and directly related to my opponents bullshit claim.  Like why would you lie.  Nowhere does it say GBS is caused by vaccines alone.  No source and a flat out lie by my classless opponent. 

Febrile Seizures

Studies have connected febrile seizures to genetics.    Ultimatly it is a fever that causes


That same source states

A child can develop a low-grade fever after a vaccination. The fever, not the vaccination, causes the seizure.

My opponent has not shown vaccines are not safe.  The two cases stated I completely debunk, because they are based on lies.

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

Opponent talks about herd immunity,  But that immunity goes away if you don't get all your boosters.

Opponent said 

 the math here is simple.
Only smart thing they said:

Vaccine hesitance costs 1.5 million lives a year.  That was my third example.  So you are an anti-vaxxer and people die.  Talk about math.

Groups of people can be bad.  Someone who wonders about a side effect might be one thing.  But that is the same curiosity as someone reading the ingrediants on their pack of cookies.   

I proved vaccines are safe with just a handful of studies.
I proved that anti-vaxxers and vaccine avoiders are dangerous cause they cause health crisis.

My opponent lies, and provides info without source.  



Published:
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.

If this doesn't outline Pro's self-fatal debate strategy, then I don't know what does. 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. Also, I never agreed that his sources "were a match," when talking about anti-vaxxers. Simply saying 

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. 
This is a blatant attempt to make Con not meet the resolution standards, when in reality the onus fell upon Pro to state/define the overall meaning of "safe" in this debate. With his given rhetoric, he conceded to the notion that vaccines are completely safe (otherwise he would have addressed this) because according to his R1 argument (if you could call it that) vaccines being safe is "irrefutable."  Sure, many things in life come with risks, but if you're injecting a plethora of chemicals into your body there better be little to NO risk involved, or you should know of all the risks and how to prevent them. Ergo, vaccines are not as safe as they can be. It should also be noted that Pro has painted Con to not cite any sources about GBS when in fact I did. I encourage Pro to better his literary comprehension skills and reread my R1 argument. 

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
I never said anti-vaxxers are not dangerous because of herd immunity. This is further proof that Pro has not fully comprehended my R1 argument and has allowed his toxicity to get the better of him (although I expected nothing less). I brought up herd immunity to demonstrate the fact that anti-vaxxers don't need vaccines due to this sociological phenomenon and are not posing a health threat to themselves or other people who are vaccinated. The underlying argument here is not that they're not dangerous, but outlining the philosophy of not needing a vaccine.

The only way Pro has tried to argue this sub-resolution was by citing the WHO that says roughly 2 to 3 million lives are lost due to a lack of vaccination. However, this is a GLOBAL report. There are many poor countries in the world who don't have access to vaccines and lose their lives to other fatal diseases specific to those areas, so unless if everyone in the poorest countries in the world are anti-vax, it's a misused source (so much for info bombing lmao). To lazily tie this to anti-vaxxers is not only a dishonest tactic, but a flawed one at that. 

Yet again, Pro provides no real argumentation and tries to have his studies do all of the talking for him. You don't win debates by having the best sources and being toxic, but rather through making the best argument. I'll reiterate: Pro has not made a single comprehensive argument in this debate. 

Now allow me to rebuff my prior arguments.

  • 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

IN SUMMARY:

Pro has approached this debate expecting a free win through citing sources alone. The art of debate is to use logic and reasoning to convey an idea in hopes of learning or teaching something new. Forensics debating has never been a contest on who has the best sources, otherwise no one would learn anything. It's about conveying information in the most strategic way possible. When reading both of his arguments, it's easy to see the amount of emphasis Pro has on his beautiful, do-no-wrong sources, but fails to provide any logic, reasoning, and simple original ideas/arguments to the table. Pro has also shown to be very toxic, and while ad hominem can sometimes add gravitas to speech, it has the reverse effect in this case and comes off as tacky and distasteful.

Pro may/may not be new to the DebateArt community, but if he wants to win future debates, then he has to improve his strategies and his attitude. 

On the other hand, Con has provided extensive argumentation on why vaccines are not as safe as you think, but also why it's not fair to classify anti-vaxxers as dangerous people. Having severe side effects that come with vaccines should be addressed as a risk no matter what anyone says, and anti-vaxxers are not inherently dangerous by protecting people they love. Plain and simple. 

Through the sloppy debate practices used by Pro, Round 2 was essentially handed to Con for free. Vote for actual argumentation. Vote Con.
Added:
--> @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
#11
Added:
--> @Exile
It is annoying when we do that. I done the samething myself on a debate girrr
#10
Added:
--> @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.
Contender
#9
Added:
--> @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.
Contender
#8
Added:
--> @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
#7
Added:
--> @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.
#6
Added:
--> @TheJackle
You may be interested in reading the opening post i made on the new "dtap" thread.
#5
Added:
--> @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
#4
Added:
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
Instigator
#3
Added:
--> @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."
#2
Added:
--> @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.
Contender
#1
#4
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro looses because of their poor conduct....Idiot....Fucking....Asshole....
Need I say more?
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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.