Instigator / Pro
1477
rating
7
debates
42.86%
won
Topic
#3225
Establishing restrictions on the use of antibiotics for medical use. (whiteflame requested and accepted)
Status
Debating
Waiting for the instigator's first argument.
The round will be automatically forfeited in:
00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
More details
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Category
- Miscellaneous
- Time for argument
- One week
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Rated
- Characters per argument
- 10,000
Contender / Con
1603
rating
352
debates
65.34%
won
Description
~ 280
/
5,000
Opponent must present a topic and framework in the chat. I will agree with a specific resolution and debate that topic.
ONLY RULE IS NO TROLLISH TOPICS.
Any suggested changes to the debate will be implemented.
(This debate is a copy, because I want to debate an active person.)
Round 1
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 2
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 3
Not published yet
Not published yet
This debate won't matter anyway. The mods won't let me on the site until I'm 13. Ragnar DM'ed me
The accepted part
What part of whiteflame requested and accepted did you not understand?!
Agreed.
It'll have to wait a bit, likely won't be able to start this until the weekend, so I'll accept a little before then.
In the meantime, I would like to clarify what definitions we are using.
My use of the words "Establishing restrictions" implies the government actively imposing limitations on antibiotic usage. Are we agreed on that?
I'm willing to accept Establishing restrictions on the use of antibiotics for medical use as PRO. Accept it when ready.
I'd be up for variations on any of the following:
Establishing restrictions on the use of antibiotics for medical use (either side)
Environmental movements should support climate engineering that fundamentally alters the environment in an attempt to combat global warming (Con)
Government agencies that regulate drugs should only test whether a drug is safe, not whether it is effective, before approving it for public use (Con)
I'm interested in what you think of my plan to get the US out of debt:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13C09M6rSyjeQKNWXh_hG-9MreNwat2vEZVfO4E1zZKY/edit#gid=592285639
Eh, been done a lot.
THBT: the benefits of gun control outweigh the harms
(im not interested in debating just thought id throw out some suggestions)