Instigator / Pro
1
1438
rating
6
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#554

Viruses don't exist

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
0
4
Better legibility
1
2
Better conduct
0
2

After 2 votes and with 13 points ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
One day
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
14
1697
rating
556
debates
68.17%
won
Description

To prove that viruses don't exist. Answer these logic questions -
1. How did the first person to see a virus know that it was a virus without any references as to what a virus looks like?
2. How do viruses find their host if they have no legs, arms, eyes, ears, brains, sense of touch or means of locomotion?
3. How can something that is dead, suddenly come to life?
4. How can viruses survive in the atmosphere and sunlight without any walls for protection? (very fragile)
5. How does a entity (virus) that kills its host pass on its genes and what does it gain by killing the host?
6. If viruses are proteins, then why don't small insects like ants find them and eat them all?

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 position is automatically indefensible because viruses have literally been isolated and viewed through a microscope.
Pro didn't use a single credible source for his claims.
Pro often types like a teenage girl texting on a cell phone.
Pro is a dick to Con and ignores or brushes off many of his arguments without a proper response.

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:

The resolution is that Viruses don’t exist.

Pro appears to have the burden of proof here: and from this, he has the burden to provide an argument as to why currently medically accepted concepts of viruses do not really exist.

Pro asked a series of questions that seemed blatantly absurd, and made no attempt to fully explain their relevance. I cannot five any particlar credence to them regardless of how they are answered unless pro provides a detailed explanation of how those questions fit into the resolution.

Moreover, while pro asserts in multiple locations that viruses do not exist, and that disease are caused by diet, I cannot find any location where he provides any substantial argument where he explains and details the reasoning of why viruses do not exist. This is a debate site, and starting a debate then simply asserting the Spanish flu was caused by bad diet with little other detail is not sufficient to meet your burden of proof that viruses do not exist.

Importantly, as well as the irrelevant side track of the questions - con showed multiple images of viruses.

Other than dismissing these images, as fake - pro offers no other explanation, and simply dismisses this evidence out of hand.

If pro isn’t able to offer an argument against why these images of viruses are not viruses other than “they could be anything”, then he concedes the point in my view.

As pro offers no argument as to why he thinks viruses dont exist - only assertions - and has no real rebuttal to being presented with a picture of a virus, he wins.

Sources:
Pro made a series of wild claims, and none of his sources supported the primary contentions he was making about diet, his sources, such as the Spanish flu link, we’re primarily scientific that were then wildly extrapolated without warrant.

Con on the other hand, won by presenting images from reputible medical sources, which is basically the core reason he won.

Sources to con.

Conduct:

Pro is rude and petulant throughout:
“Con spits the dummy here”

“Con has shown his belligerent nature and thinks that he can bully and threaten people into submission. His new boxer avatar is even more appropriate than his previous arrogant man avatar. lol”

And repeated use of derogatory “lol”s directed at con - condict to con.