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.

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: 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