Instigator / Pro
7
1561
rating
112
debates
59.38%
won
Topic
#6081

Anesthesia Causes People To Lose Continuity Of Consciousness

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

FishChaser
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
4
1578
rating
200
debates
54.75%
won
Description

No information

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:

Both sides FFd after Round 1. This negates FF and males it a 1 Round debate.

bith sides severely disagreed on what Anesthesia is vs the triggers of it (anasthetics).

Only one side used 1 source (other used 0) but I am not entirely sure Pro write his Round himself as opposed to AI structuring it as it is very strangely structured.

My conclusion is not based on outside knowledge of what anesthesia is but only from this terrible debate.

In this debate Con says anesthesia is a state where one can 100% lose consciousness by conceding they lose consciousness.

Neither side define 'cause'. So, does losing consciousness cause loss of consciousnessness? Pro clearly advocates this while Con also grasps at an angle that you do not need to lose consciousness to be abesthetised. He did fail to.back that up with a source and specify what I know outside this debate to benlocal anesthetic.

Instead he doubles down on this lapse of sourcing and argumebtation by defining it as the state of losing consciousness. He says this is an effect rather than a cause.

The issue is that an effect can still cause. An effect can either perpetuate or anew cause more.

he contradicted himself literally the next line of arguments after defining anesthesia in a way that lets it not necessitate loss of consciousness.

The used of source was not well utilised by Con as it backs Pro in a way.

I vote Pro as both sides terribly debated this and I find that the semantics Con attempted gebuinely backfired. Losing consciousness causes people to lose continuity of consciousness. Neither side defined 'cause' or 'continuity' for me to conclude Con's Kritik is valid.