Instigator / Pro
23
1517
rating
1
debates
100.0%
won
Topic
#3110

Resolved: Frankincense should be Standardized and endorsed as a Medicine by Doctors and pharmacies

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
9
3
Better sources
8
6
Better legibility
4
4
Better conduct
2
4

After 4 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

OrwelliusofCicero
Parameters
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
Contender / Con
17
1498
rating
5
debates
50.0%
won
Description

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.

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:

Concession

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'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.

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:

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.

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:

Concession.