Instigator / Pro
2
1557
rating
35
debates
52.86%
won
Topic
#1847

Over reliance on vaccinations may lead to profiteering and poor sanitation

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
0
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...

TheJackle
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1476
rating
4
debates
25.0%
won
Description

Now this debate comes with a "disclaimer". This in no way supports those with vaccine denialism.
I am not supporting vaccine denialism. I am supporting that there "are" genuine concerns regards to vaccinations, and that our current reliance on vaccination could be considered an "over reliance" with the importance of sanitation being deminished.
I will also argue that it may be a tad naive to assume that the pharmaceutical industry.is not a corporation with maximum profits being one of their main corporate policies.

Advisory

I would also like to add. While my opponent has freedom to express their own free-will regards to how they conduct the debate, the debate should be conducted by someone that already has a strong belief in this subject, before taking on the debate.
It should be evident in my opponents argument that this is a subject they are knowledgeable about. And that they would have been of the opinion they are assuming during the debate, before they accepted the challenge. My opponent should already be of the pre-conceived notion regards to his argument.

Ultimately, it should be an honest debate. And the main factor on how the debate is judged should not deflect away from the title.

The debate may verge in to sub-branches, or sub-topics, but there should be no pleas for voters to assume arguments revolving around sub-issues, have became the main argument.

The main argument is "Over reliance on vaccinations may lead to profiteering and poor sanitation".

My opponent would also be expected to try and also provide some proof for his or her arguments. Even though i do not specifically set this as a rule, as i am not my brothers keeper, and i believe everyone has free-will, it would however be expected,

"All cards should be on the table"
Also quotes with links should be clear. If my opponent is providing a limk for something, then at least one or two lines from the link should be provided as a quote, so that everyone can see what the source they are linking too says.

And if they cannot provide the quote, because the link is to a 535page book, then perhaps they should find a way of proving their source says what they say it says, by taking the time to surf the internet and find a copy they can quote from, or find another source that says this, rather than leave it to the opponent to do their research for them, and go searching for their links, and scowering the internet for their opponents claims.

It would be expected my opponent also has an argument of their own to present to the audience. And simply standing arms folded purely trying to deminish my argument, should somehow be considered a better argument, may be considered questionable. But again, this is just an advisory, and not explicitly demanded.

And of course my opponent should attempt to deminish my argument. But they should also have an argument of their own to present.

So ultimately, the voter should have at their discretion the ability to vote for an argument not being substantial enough.
By this i mean a "lazy" argument. Where-by" the Con assumes only the position of the defence, but appears to assume no need for also "proving" their side of the argument, with their entire argument revolving around purely disproving Pros claims.
This may be mistaken for a good argument.
But a voter has at their discretion the ability to decide it is not, and that Con also had the responsibility to prove their counter argument.

And this is not a wordplay debate.
There is no room in this debate for a debater that wishes to accept the challenge thinking they have spotted a loophole in the title or description that they can jump on and make this the main focus, and try to somehow persuade the voters that theirs was the better argument based upon a play on words that the instigator likely did not even mean.

Common sense must also prevail, and an argument such as this, does not even require responding too.
Failing to respond to certain types of arguments, or make any suggestion to the voters, does not equate to the opponents bad argument, or error, becoming validated.

The voter has the right to punish a debater for errors, even if the error was not highlighted by the other debater. It should be assumed that the other debater did in fact spot the logical fallacy, or the inaccuracy, or general misdemeanor, but chose not to highlight it and allow it to be self explanatory to the readers.

But ultimately, my opponent should have a good solid counter argument that can be weighed up against my own.

In the event my opponent fails to comply with any of my advisories, then the voters have at their dicretion the ability to enforce my advisories

And all my advisories apply to me aswell. Regardless of the word term i used above.

-->
@DrSpy

This is the most frustrating thing I have read. I so want to go for Pro here. I am well versed on the subject. The debate definition is something that is very clear. The word "may" crated a technicality that I think both parties avoided (except for Pro trying to invoke it in the last round). And even as TheJackle keeps attacking me and others, they did a good job here. Even with the swearing and unconventional language, they did a good job. I tried to agree with Pro, i just could not find a way.
PRO:
Starts out with a position with a conspiracy theory reference. Conspiracy theories are not the foundation of evidence. Some elements of a conspiracy theory may support a well-founded thesis, but should not be the corpus of one. Pro provides links to Wiki quotes on the following subjects:
1. General Conspiracy theory. --> Pro says it is now contemporary understanding
2. Big Pharma financial motives --> Pro claims alternative medicines are the target
3. Other Parties motives --> Pro claims lawyers, and legal groups also benefit
Pro starts out with these elements but does not develop on them.
For sanitation, Pro tries to establish that vaccines are reducing sensitivity to sanitation concerns by highlighting a few OCD diagnosis cases. Pro does not show any cause and effect.
Later on, Pro continues repeating the quotes from Wikipedia, without developing those ideas and offers an example of paracetamol as an example.
Pro writes extensively about sanitation and makes some great points about how important sanitation is as part of the war on disease. However, there is no cause and effect established.
Pro hints that some new vaccines support his financial motives. But he frustratingly Pro does not develop anything related to CDC patents, the fact that so many current big pharma execs used to work at the CDC or FDA, the lobbying done, the fact that FDA recommended no testing for Gardasil 9... the contradictions by the WHO. Another HUGE area that was not developed was the fact that drug companies are indemnified by the federal government for any injuries caused by vaccines. There was so much potential and Pro did not address any of it.
Pro then keeps circling back saying arguments had been made that had not. Pro admits to agreeing to everything that Con was saying but just wanted
Con to add sanitation to his/her agenda. That was not the debate purpose.
Con, was rather direct, and rude. Swearing, and showing written forms of frustration. However, Con was focused. Stayed direct to the point. Con showed that Pro never established there is, or intended to be profiteering. Con also brought up over and over again that those connections weren't being made.
Con then provided some good resources supporting vaccine and sanitation as part of a co strategy.
Points to Con
POINT ARGUMENT - CON. for above reasons
POINT SOURCES - CON. Had much better variety, and more sources of the first reference. Wikipedia is not a primary source.
POINT. S&G - TIE. Nothing in it
POINT CONDUCT - Kind of tough. Con was rude, with some swearing, but I did not see any attacking behavior that warranted a penalty. Nothing wrong with Pro.

Removed vote. Please see DM

-->
@DrSpy

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: DrSpy // Mod action: [Removed]

>Points Awarded: 5 points to Con, 1 point to Pro

>Reason for Decision: This is the most frustrating thing I have read. I so want to go for Pro here. I am well versed on the subject. The debate definition is something that is very clear. The word "may" crated a technicality that I think both parties avoided (except for Pro trying to invoke it in the last round). And even as TheJackle keeps attacking me and others, they did a good job here. Even with the swearing and unconventional language, they did a good job.
PRO:
Starts out with a position with a conspiracy theory reference. Conspiracy theories are not the foundation of evidence. Some elements of a conspiracy theory may support a well-founded thesis, but should not be the corpus of one. Pro provides links to Wiki quotes on the following subjects:
1. General Conspiracy theory. --> Pro says it is now contemporary understanding
2. Big Pharma financial motives --> Pro claims alternative medicines are the target
3. Other Parties motives --> Pro claims lawyers, and legal groups also benefit
Pro starts out with these elements but does not develop on them.
For sanitation, Pro tries to establish that vaccines are reducing sensitivity to sanitation concerns by highlighting a few OCD diagnosis cases. Pro does not show any cause and effect.
Later on, Pro continues repeating the quotes from Wikipedia, without developing those ideas and offers an example of paracetamol as an example.
Pro writes extensively about sanitation and makes some great points about how important sanitation is as part of the war on disease. However, there is no cause and effect established.
Pro hints that some new vaccines support his financial motives. But he frustratingly Pro does not develop anything related to CDC patents, the fact that so many current big pharma execs used to work at the CDC or FDA, the lobbying done, the fact that FDA recommended no testing for Gardasil 9... the contradictions by the WHO. Another HUGE area that was not developed was the fact that drug companies are indemnified by the federal government for any injuries caused by vaccines. There was so much potential and Pro did not address any of it.
Pro then keeps circling back saying arguments had been made that had not. Pro admits to agreeing to everything that Con was saying but just wanted Con to add sanitation to his/her agenda. That was not the debate purpose.
Con, was rather direct, and rude. Swearing, and showing written forms of frustration. However, Con was focused. Stayed direct to the point. Con showed that Pro never established there is, or intended to be profiteering. Con also brought up over and over again that those connection weren't being made.
Con then provided some good resources supporting vaccine and sanitation as part of a co strategy.
Points to Con
======
Source, Pro relied heavily on Wikipedia quotes. 35 wiki references, and only one nonreference (quotes 3x). Con was very diverse, and while not as many, certainly demonstrates they did their homework. Points to Con
S&G - Both were understood and written to read. tie.
Conduct. - I have to give this to Pro. The swearing and frustration was too obvious.
Very frustrating from my side. So I guess I have to say well done to Con.

>Reason for Mod Action: Argument-point allocations were justified, but to award source points, a voter must "explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate." While I understand that the voter has an issue with Wikipedia, it is unclear how single-minded use of Wikipedia affected the debate or was necessarily bad. One or two sentences explaining this shall suffice. Other than that, it was a perfectly justified vote.
************************************************************************

-->
@fauxlaw

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: [Not Removed]

>Points Awarded: 5 points to Con

>Reason for Decision:
Argument: I look at the debate title and conclude, by the arguments, that Con did a better job of staying on point with regard to vaccines, the subject of the debate, whereas Pro wandered into "Big Pharma" in general to discuss diseases that are not treated by vaccines, making a point that "Big Pharma" is profiting, which they have a right to do [this is, after all, the point of busness] and is the direct cause of world sanitation issues [which pro did not prove regarding direct cause]. Points to Con
Sources: Pro virtually limited sourcing to Wikipedia, which says of itself that "Wikipedia is not a reliable source." Pro even calls Wiki his "savior." It's fine to begin with Wiki to put one in a ballpark, but it is always better to go to their linked sources to draw conclusions from them. It may require further digging than that. If I am thirsty, I want to get as close to a supply of fresh water as possible. There's water in my gutter right now, but that's not my best source. Conversely [no pun intended] Con used varied sourcing; better sanitized water. Points to Con

>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************

-->
@fauxlaw

Can you please source from the debate, just where myself and TheJackle had the debate about heart disease please

-->
@fauxlaw

wrong.
Ask a moderator from this forum if they agree with you.
Because i quote "everything" i say. And do not add my own words, or opinions, i would then likely be quoting the entire article.
I cannot do this, due to just how much i quote my sources.
You are only allowed to quote one or two sentences. Which acts as click-bait. But over quoting becomes theift.

You may be able to quote a sentence here and there. As you mostly explain things in your own words, and put the links in comment section, and rarely do the links say 100% what you say, they say.

But that is not my style. I could not get away with quoting the sources. As i always source everything i say.

-->
@fauxlaw

But my article was relating to cholera, and other diseases such as Polio.
Not heart disease. Nowehere was heart disease the central point

http://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/news/2009/05/14/sanitation-vs-vaccination-cholera-control

-->
@fauxlaw

Well 100% of debaters on here, including you, leave it to the opponent to search through comment sections for your sources. On top of that, they may have to search through 535page books to find the quote one is referring to. I noticed one the other day. Wont mention who it was. He used as a source. A book, purchasable at £28, and really recommended it. Can be purchased on Amazon apparently.
Where-as "i", always quote word for word what my source said. just click on the link i always provide above the quote. And then click on the blue number, and see the source. You can then check through the source for the quote, just like you would have to do with a source in the comment section.
I always also when quoting wikipedia, link to the sub sections the source is relating to, so it zooms straight to the source.
Your criticism is invalid,

-->
@Nevets

When you quote from other sources, and properly cite those sources by reference, you are not violating copyright. In fact, you are supporting their copyright by doing so. Who told you otherwise? And what's their source?
"Citing. When you use material from a copyrighted source, you must properly cite it. This identifies where the material was found and shows that the material is not your original idea but is borrowed. ... Commonly, a book citation includes the book title, author, publisher, edition and year of publication... When you use material from a copyrighted source, you must properly cite it. This identifies where the material was found and shows that the material is not your original idea but is borrowed. You should cite the source for both paraphrased ideas and direct quotes. The citation should include enough information for a reader to be able to locate the original source." https://yourbusiness.azcentral.com/copyright-laws-citing-sources-16438.html

-->
@Nevets

What, pray tell, is preventing you from quoting from other sources than from Wiki. You seem adept at quoting from Wiki, why not from other sources?
It is your opponents' duty to do your sourcing job? Absurd. See my argument about seeking fresh water. So, if your source is the gutter, you expect someone else to find a better source for you? Find your own better source, and let that be challenged, if it can be. You click on your better link and quote it. And if that is not sufficient, find a further link from that first generation link. Find the best water you can find yourself. That is your job, and yours, alone. I'm as valid as I can be. If you disagree, see if a moderator will agree with you, or me.

-->
@Nevets

Diarrhea, malnutrition, heart disease are diseases that do not have direct-effect vaccines, that is, that have vaccines developed strictly for the purpose of prevention or treating these diseases. There ares vaccines that have the side effect of amielorating these diseases, but none of them have vaccines developed as an original purpose of combatting them.

-->
@fauxlaw

the problem with sourcing the actual wikipedia sources themselves, is "copyright".
If i source something, i "must" quote it, so that i cannot be accused of putting it in to my own words.
I cannot do this with outside sources.
Therefore i quote the wikipedia article.
And it is then up to my opponents if they wish to check the wikipedia sources.
They could do this just as easily by clicking on my link and checking the source themselves, just as they would check through the comments section to check my opponents sources. Your criticism is not valid

-->
@TheJackle

This has to come down to the integrity of my opponent.

Jackle. Do you agree with fauxlaw, that you successfully argued against my claim that Polio is treatable by vaccination?
Do you agree that this claim is consistant with your argument?

-->
@Nevets

Please note in my voting in giving sourcing to Con, that I reference the analogy of seeking fresh water from its best sources, as compared to my quote from Wikipedia about itself. The conclusion of that comparison ought to be a teaching moment for future debate efforts. Wiki is your savior? Low-ball savior, my friend.

-->
@fauxlaw

Can you please show me the list of diseases i produced that are not treated by vaccines?

Fauxlaw - Pro wandered into "Big Pharma" in general to discuss diseases that are not treated by vaccines, making a point that "Big Pharma" is profiting, which they have a right to do [this is, after all, the point of busness]

This is a lie.
You may believe vaccines do not treat diseases such as polio.
But the scientific community, and any sources i produced, very much believe that diseases such as Polio, are treatable by vaccine.

-->
@blamonkey

I object also to the vote by Fauxlaw "Argument: I look at the debate title and conclude, by the arguments, that Con did a better job of staying on point with regard to vaccines, the subject of the debate, whereas Pro wandered into "Big Pharma" in general to discuss diseases that are not treated by vaccines, making a point that "Big Pharma" is profiting, which they have a right to do [this is, after all, the point of busness] and is the direct cause of world sanitation issues [which pro did not prove regarding direct cause]. Points to Con"

I object on the grounds "whereas Pro wandered into "Big Pharma" in general to discuss diseases that are not treated by vaccines, making a point that "Big Pharma" is profiting",

This is "his" opinion. It was never discussed in the debate whether or not the diseases in my list are treatable by "big pharma". That specific topic did not arise. And it has not been concluded that diseases such as polio, are not treated by vaccine.

"Con did a better job of staying on point with regard to vaccines, the subject of the debate,"

I also object this was the subject of the debate.
The debate was "over reliance on vaccines may lead to profiteering and sanitation issues".

It actually, "was not" about vaccines.

I had already stated at beginnign of round 1, "Now the debate i am having here, in no way contradicts my belief in the good, and importance, of vaccines".

My opponent also awarded conduct a "tie".
Yet i was sworn at, abused, and was accused of holding beliefs i do not hold.

-->
@blamonkey

Hi, can you please read my objections.

I also object to this
" Pro admits to agreeing to everything that Con was saying but just wanted Con to add sanitation to his/her agenda. That was not the debate purpose."

I said this at the opening of round 1.

"Now the debate i am having here, in no way contradicts my belief in the good, and importance, of vaccines."

I "was not" agreeing with Con...Con was agreeing with me.

By DrSpys own admission that the "agreement part" was any consequence to decision making, then it should have been in my favour

I also dispute the honesty of his conclusion, that me providing sources and links to every single little thing i said, is defeated by someone being diverse with their use of sourcing

" Pro relied heavily on Wikipedia quotes. 35 wiki references, and only one nonreference (quotes 3x). Con was very diverse, and while not as many, certainly demonstrates they did their homework. Points to Con"

DrSpys own analysis does not support his conclusions

This for example - "Pro hints that some new vaccines support his financial motives. But he frustratingly Pro does not develop anything related to CDC patents, the fact that so many current big pharma execs used to work at the CDC or FDA, the lobbying done, the fact that FDA recommended no testing for Gardasil 9... the contradictions by the WHO. Another HUGE area that was not developed was the fact that drug companies are indemnified by the federal government for any injuries caused by vaccines. There was so much potential and Pro did not address any of it."

Nowhere did my opponent state any of this, or make those objections

I have challenged DrSpys vote on the grounds he challenges the information i provided based upon his own understandings, and not the understandings of my opponent. He also says i did a good job on certain things, and i was attacked with rudeness and swearing. Yet he still concludes that i am wrong. Not based so much on my opponents understandings. But his own. His own understandings might also be wrong however.

-->
@TheJackle

Hi, i forgot to provide a citation for this claim here.

"And now, today, we have the likes of Prevnar, Gardasil, Pedarix, which each had sales revenues of over $1 billion in 2008."

Here it is

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_hesitancy#Financial_motives
"In the early 21st century, the vaccine market greatly improved with the approval of the vaccine Prevnar, along with a small number of other high-priced blockbuster vaccines, such as Gardasil and Pediarix, which each had sales revenues of over $1 billion in 2008"

I will try to remember and include it at the beginning of round 2