Instigator / Pro
2
1486
rating
4
debates
37.5%
won
Topic
#3599
The macrophage is not important or essential to the human body
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
9
Better sources
0
6
Better legibility
1
3
Better conduct
1
3
After 3 votes and with 19 points ahead, the winner is...
Novice_II
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
21
1890
rating
98
debates
93.37%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Pro
#1
The macrophage may not be needed at all times because when waste enters the body, the macrophages job is to consume it. We would not need the macrophage since the red blood cells already clear out the waste in our body, don't forget, another way our waste leaves the body is feces. Yes I know macrophages both kill bacteria and consume our waste but we have 5 other types of white blood cells and we would still live our life just fine! The memory B cell stores in data on how the white blood cells killed the certain virus/bacteria so we won't need to worry about not getting recovered quickly from illness.
The macrophage has two jobs, why am I opposing to this?
If you split the two jobs of a macrophage, you will realise that both jobs are taken by many other support cells and white blood cells, so having an extra cell just sitting around making sure you poop less is really pointless. But again I'm not saying " all humans should take surgery to remove their macrophages " because that's really a waste of time. I guess pooping less isn't that bad after all, and having more blood, but that doesn't make me change my mind on how humans can live without macrophages. The human body has everything they need, no need for an extra cell, it's not like it will save your life or anything.
Round 2
Con
#4
Resolved: The macrophage is not important or essential to the human body
x. Default to con
- Pro bears the burden of evidence in this debate. This is a debate predicated upon the human body and biological science. Pro has not referenced nor provided a single source in his round one argument, and thus, if I were to end the debate on this note I would still effectively claim victory as pro has not upheld his respective burden.
- Dismiss all claims asserted by pro as unsubstantiated.
Macrophages/Importance
- First, pro makes subtle mentions of its function but does not take the step of defining macrophages they are "effector cells of the innate immune system that phagocytose bacteria and secrete both pro-inflammatory and antimicrobial mediators. In addition, macrophages play an important role in eliminating diseased and damaged cells through their programmed cell death."
- Its importance is sufficiently revealed in a description of the cells alone. Macrophages are specialized cells, "involved in the detection, phagocytosis, and destruction of bacteria and other harmful organisms." They have a unique function that cannot be replicated by other cells in the body, contrary to the instigator's claims.
The case of dysfunction
- To refute all of pro's unsubstantiated notions (although they do not require a direct refutation as they are not credible claims), we can appeal to extensive biological research that demonstrates what happens when the macrophage fails to function. When the macrophage does not function, the effects on the human body are profound and evident. The argument is simple.
- p1. If in the case where they do not function, there are severe and profound effects on the body, the function of macrophages is important and essential to the human body.
- p2. In the case where they do not function, there are severe and profound effects on the body.
- c. Macrophages are important and essential to the human body.
- For instance: Nanomedicines for dysfunctional macrophage-associated diseases shows not only that "macrophages play vital functions in host inflammatory reaction, tissue repair, homeostasis and immunity," but additionally, "dysfunctional macrophages have significant pathophysiological impacts on diseases such as cancer, inflammatory diseases (rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease), metabolic diseases (atherosclerosis, diabetes and obesity) and major infections like human immunodeficiency virus."
- Additional biological research shows "there is increasing evidence that even subtle genetic changes in macrophage function contribute to altered responses to both acute infections and in many major acquired disease processes such as autoimmunity, inflammatory diseases and cancer."
- The conclusive case is that the macrophage is not only essential but vital to the well-being of the human body.
Conclusion
- The decision seems simple to me. This is a biological debate. Only one person posted sources, and thus, one person made substantiated claims.
Sources
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:
null norfeit
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:
According to this website's dysfunctional forfeiture rules, Pro FF'd and Con didn't, even though both posted the same Rounds of debate. :)
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:
With effectively only one round this debate is really simple. Pro shows that in many areas macrophages can be replaced, but con only needs to show that they can not be replaced in one area in order to win.
I can just immediately vote on the specialized cell point for this reason.
Then Con also tells me that there are profound effects, and this claim is never responded to as it is the last speech. I am also going to believe this claim over pro's due to the sources presented by con which lend credibility.
Finally there is the entire argument with BoP and sources. While purely logical arguments are find in my mind, especially for a scientific debate sources seem important to make ones point so this is yet another possible place to vote for Con purely on presumption.
The forfeited rounds are unfortunate, so this is definitely still a low point win.
I feel like there's something fishy about this debate. It seems too good to be true. Looks like a free win, so free to the point something is up.