Instigator / Pro
8
1309
rating
269
debates
40.71%
won
Topic
#3971

Vaccines cause autism

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
2
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
2

After 3 votes and with 12 points ahead, the winner is...

Sir.Lancelot
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
20
1587
rating
182
debates
55.77%
won
Description

Almost everyone has autism these days. My guess is its because of vaccines. The government injects reptile blood in us to make us stupid and autistic.

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:

Only Con used sources.

Pro argues that vaccines involve unwanted penetration, however something neither debater explores is consensual vaccination. This actually gives the point to Pro, Con lazily and arrogantly gives up the following Rounds with barely any response to Pro, even intentionally sending a blank Round.

This is why conduct is given to Pro, it was intentional disrespect with Round 5 having direct abuse given to Pro in a mocking manner.

The problem for Pro is that Pro never explores how rape causes autism, that link is never made. Con only provides us with the fact that rape and vaccination are not defined the same, which proves very little as a dog and a cat are still both animals and have breeds within them. Definitions differing would mean one cannot call kung fu a striking art if anything in it is grappling nor could one compare it to Karate as the definitions differ. That does not remotely follow.

Pro wins the rape comparison since Con fails again and again to point out that vaccination can be consensual and often is.

Pro does not ever explain how rape or vaccination cause autism, this is a fundamental flaw and how Con ends up winning.

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 does a good job showing logically valid forms, with wholly unsound conclusions (as con is quick to point out via reminding us the definitions don't connect).

Con would have done better with some more jokes, but as I did not find pro's jokes to be funny, even weighing this as comedy I'll end up favoring 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:

Arguments: The BoP was on PRO to show that vaccines cause autism. Even if his ludicrous argument that vaccination is rape was upheld, he still failed to prove that rape causes autism. CON correctly noted the BoP, which was all he needed to do.

Sources: CON used several sources for definitions, while PRO used none.

S/G: Acceptable from both sides.

Conduct: AFAIK, troll arguments are annoying, but not poor conduct.