Resolved: Frankincense should be Standardized and endorsed as a Medicine by Doctors and pharmacies
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 4 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
DEFINITIONS:
Frankincense-" a fragrant gum resin from trees of a genus (Boswellia of the family Burseraceae) of Somalia and southern coastal Arabia that is an important incense resin and has been used in religious rites, perfumery, and embalming"- Merriam webster dictionary definition.
Medicinal-"A substance, be it a plant, or any other kind, that has been proven to have healing properties (has actual medicinal use)".
STRUCTURE:
R1- PRO Constructive & CON Constructive (Constructive as in setting the foundation to which the debates later rounds shall be made on, which is to say, mostly just opening arguments and main sources not really a response to either argument).
R2-3- Fluid attack/defense. No set structure here. (Just don't forget about your past statements).
RULESET:
1. No new arguments made in the final round
2. No trolling
3. You must follow the debate structure
4. No plagiarism
5. Must follow debate definitions.
RULESET PENALTY:
If the ruleset is broken, the penalty will be the loss of a conduct point. By accepting the debate, the contender accepts the RULESET and the RULESET PENALTY.
Concession
Pro's Arguments outweigh Con's arguments. Con immediately started with an argument that basically said that there are side effect to this drug, but to common sense, a medicine would work if the benefits outweigh the side effects, which is exactly what Pro argues in the next round with more sourcing than Con. One round arguments for both and Con did not even attempt to refute Pro's R2 arguments despite having the chance of doing so.
Legibility is the same, readable for both.
The structure was violated by both as both forfeited, however due to that Con conceding and forfeiting less, Conduct goes to Con.
This will be a weird one as it is counter to a concession, but BoP failure from pro combined with them forfeiting 80% of the debate tip it, along with the desire to give meaningful feedback with a little weight (I fully expect my vote to be outweighed by a bunch of others).
So con makes a snippet of an argument that it is potentially bad (in short, some people are allergic to some things). Pro counters that such is poor reasoning, even pointing out con's source spoke just of one form of the frankincense (strongly implying there are indeed others). And that's where the arguments end. No actual points in favor of frankincense were proposed.
This is a common failing for truism debates, that the instigator considers things self evident, so does not bother putting in the minimal amount of work to properly claim their nearly free win.
Sources (leaning pro, but ultimately still tied):
Con was the only one who integrated any. That said, pro was able to pick about con's source making it pretty much null if not outright leaning in his favor (a direct quotation from it would help). I wish I saw more of this time of clash.
Pro then claims to have had much better sources, via source spam. I don't reward source spam. If no data is drawn from them into the arguments, they get no credit in impact analysis.
Legibility (tied):
Nothing to say, as both were fine.
Conduct (con):
Normally for a concession, I would give con conduct at the expense of arguments. As is, I am leaving that unfactored...
However, pro's choice to miss 4 rounds, is literally twice the weight of con missing 2. I would prefer to leave this vote argument only, but it's hard to ignore that bad of a conduct violation.
Concession.
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?
wake up
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.
-->@Undefeatable
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"?