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

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:

Pro looses because of their poor conduct....Idiot....Fucking....Asshole....

Need I say more?

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:

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

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:

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.

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:

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.