I apologize for not responding sooner. I had no idea anyone had even responded to this debate, and was just in the process of creating a couple of new debates, of which I would argue are of a much higher importance, and duality than this. (controversially speaking of course). But that isn't very relevant right now. I just wanted to explain myself. So with that much needed apology out of the way. Let's begin.
First of all, I would like to point out that my oppositions reasoning is severely flawed in numerous ways. Specifically concerning his reasoning that a substance that has potentially severe side effects, such as Frankincense should not be standardized. This proposition is simply absurd and shows just how little my opposition actually understands of the standardization process, or how products, specifically medical products are standardized. His words were, and I quote-"I fail to see why something should be a medicine if there are potentially significant side effects." First of all it is important to note that every single standardized medical substance on Earth has "potentially significant" side effects. In fact every single substance known to man has the potential to be lethal in some way, shape, or form. Even air has the potential to be dangerous if administrated incorrectly. And that especially goes towards standardized and prescribed medical substances as well (it's also one of the reasons as to why standardization can actually benefit how frankincense is produced and applied/given to people/customers). Standardization of a product can help improve the quality, distribution, and the better usage of safety measures for said product. Another thing I would like to point out is that your source talks about Frankincense oil, and Frankincense oil only, and even so it quite literally clerifys that it's still better than some of it's other, more artificial alternatives/counterparts. What I find hilarious is the fact that the "source/article" that you used even talks about how Frankincense oil still has good uses, and that " Some side effects are possible, but the MSKCC notes that frankincense seems to have fewer negative effects than drugs that treat inflammatory conditions, such as steroids and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs." Which means that your own source admits that the "potentially dangerous " side effects that you speak of, are A. No where near as dangerous (for the most part) than their artificial drug counterparts, and that B. Nor are they any where near as prevalent either.
So with all of this having been said, I believe that I have proved that the standardization of Frankincense would in fact be a much, much better idea, than barring it from such a process. Not only this, but I have shown that my opponents arguments are not only inherently flawed, but his own source in fact counteracts his own points, in fact one could argue that he was being extremely misleading with his usage of the terms related to said "Article". Also, I would argue that I have used more reputable sources than my opposition, aside from using his own as an example, I would argue that my sources on the subject/matter at hand are for more reliable, reputable, and trustworthy. Than his was. So, with that having been said, I now leave it to the jury to make sense of this whole conundrum.
You forfeited twice as much.
I'm seriously surprised my vote hasn't been outweighed by a bunch of others yet. If it gets to within a few days like this, remind me and I'll reevaluate.
Brooo, why you do this to me, he forfeited lmao. :(, now I'm probably going to lose lol. It's ok though, I just can't believe you went to the dark side :(((((((((((((. (Totally extremely sad and betrayed right now m8t).
I think I should win, he forfeited, so I saw no reason, and still see no reason as to why I should continue this debate after my opponent forfeited. Instead I'm working on other projects, and pet peeves of mine. Sorry if that's a bad answer, my apologies nonetheless.
Concession vs FF. Which one wins?
Yeah I agree, my formatting wasn't very good in this debate, but that's mostly because I was busy, and wasn't taking this debate seriously.
The #1 spot on the leaderboard is occupied by oromagi. It would be quite a spectacle if your opponent conceded and you still lost, so I agree you won lmao. I look forward to reading your future debates or participating in them myself! I hope that I can prove to be a formidable opponent for you as well in due time.
When it comes to formatting, I am very ~overzealous~. In person debating hammers home road-mapping so much that I basically present a very simplified version of my argument at the beginning of my speech and then go further in-depth (this is non-standard, but very effective, I've found). This is to say that I am far from worlds greatest example, but I would definitely say that treating your writing more like a short story and less like a forum post (table of contents, paragraphing, formatting, etc...) would definitely improve your arguments if only in the ability of others and I to understand them.
The resolution itself, as I mentioned prior, seems nearly impossible to defeat. I can not think of any way for con to make affirmative arguments , only to make rebuttals, which at that point pro wins by default simply because they can present affirmative arguments to begin with (in my opinion and experience).
I have to tell you. You're more formidable than I thought you were. However, try improving formatting. One huge paragraph doesn't look pleasing to the eyes.
Thanks! I think I won this one lmao. However I will say this though, this was really just a starter debate for me. The debates I really wanna have are going to be around much, much more controversial subjects, and I believe that they have the potential to be hall of gamers too. I would like to have them with people like undefeatable, Ragnar, mrchris,faux law, and Ramshutu. Also that guy who is number one on the leaderboard. (Sorry I forgot your name.) fruit inspector seems like an interesting opponent as well.
Best of luck!
Not my best response, but I'm a bit busy right now. See you guys later for now.
Yeah sorry. I'm going to respond now. But still. TheUnderdog is being kind of funny lol.
After further looking into it, I've found evidence to suggest there isn't good reason to believe it should be standardized. I have not, however, found good reason to believe it shouldn't be standardized. I don't feel like con can have a good position in this debate for that reason.
I feel any arguments I make in this debate would be heavily centred around the lack of high quality, extensive studies regarding the use of frankincense and the possible side effects. I'll have to do some more research, especially with regards to what constitutes sufficient or insufficient evidence for the standardization of any medical treatment before I'm confident. I'll check back soon if this is still open.
I agree but am tempted to take this debate thinking you won't respond and I can merely make a claim giving me the win.
I don't know too much about Frankincense.
True, sorry about that, that's a very good point. I'll get rid of, or edit this one. Thanks, undefeatable.
This looks like a truism. Would you like the harder, "Frankincense should be Standardized and endorsed as a Medicine by Doctors and pharmacies"?