Instigator / Con
Points: 47

Vaccination is a scam

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 7 votes the winner is ...
Club
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Health
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
9,000
Contender / Pro
Points: 27
Description
No information
Round 1
Published:
Preview (in case of trolling and forfeiting)
1. Side Effects aren't as Bad as Not Taking Vaccinations
2. For the Common Good
3. Vaccinations do help


Published:
Vaccinations are certainly not a scam as the instigator of this debate suggests.

1) Vaccines save children's lives.
2) The ingredients in vaccines are safe in the amounts used.
3) Vaccinations have a proven track record.

It seems my opponent wishes to argue "vaccines are NOT a scam" rather than the debate he actually created. If this is the case, then I accept his concession.





Round 2
Published:
Actually, I am con, so you just conceded to my argument.
To put this into simpler words
I am against "Vaccines are scam" so I BELIVE THAT VACCINES ARE NOT A SCAM. This instigator is not always pro, I am con. So I accept your concession. 
To put this into slang terms
No you
To put this into babyish terms.
I don't like vaccines being called scams, so I am arguing that I don't like them.
Published:
Hmmm, it seems we have nothing to argue, so..how's life? 😂

Round 3
Published:
Good....
I'm really busy but good
How's yours going?
lol
Published:
Doing good, although, it seems I may be losing a debate soon. I'm totally bummed. 😭
Round 4
Published:
lol
Published:
Alright, time for the closing round - let's see a big finish!
Round 5
Published:
(insert big finish here)
Published:
*stands in awe of big finish* 
Added:
Ahh, you guys don't get too upset over this. I made a mistake in determining which side the instigator was for. I've learned from my mistake and my opponent gets an easy win. No harm, no foul. 😃😃
Contender
#8
Added:
--> @Debaticus
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Debaticus // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: All points to pro
RFD: Trying to tie up pro to keep him from a debate loss
Reason for mod action: This is a conceded debate. As such, it is impermissible to vote for the forfeiting side. Furthermore, it is also against the COC to vote in order to prevent someone from loosing. This vote is considered a vote bomb. Finally, this user is not elliable to vote.
*******************************************************************
#7
Added:
--> @Speedrace
I'm also going to add that this is not a noob trap debate. The resolution was clear as well as which side the contender was arguing.
#6
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
Ayyy nice
#5
Added:
--> @Speedrace
*******************************************************************
Reported Vote: Speedrace Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 point to pro
>Reason for Decision: This is clearly a noob trap...I might get reported for this but whatever, you shouldn’t intentionally make debates such as this
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate is considered a conceded debate. Conceded debates votes are normally unmoderated unless the balance of points are cast in favour of the conceding side. As the voter casts 7 points to the conceding side, this vote is considered invalid.
*******************************************************************
#4
Added:
Also, I don't think of Skept as a noob- he was good debater on DDO as I remember & has been on this site since inception.
#3
Added:
--> @Club
Welp, if it gets removed, it gets removed
#2
Added:
--> @RationalMadman, @Speedrace
I'm actually a noob myself, but I didn't mean to create a so called "noob trap". I just transferred this debate from DDO, and I was con. Even them Speedrace, you shouldn't make Pro get all the points, only conduct. It was clear that he conceded, so I would get the better arguments
Instigator
#1
#7
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Concession and role confusion. I hope you each argue this against from the sides you prefer (not against each other, since you both wanted the same side).
#6
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro needs to be more careful of what side they're on. Conduct to Con
Concession. Arguments to Con.
#5
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
nolo contendere
#4
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Concession
#3
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pretty much a concession. This is why it's important to look at which side you are arguing for.
#2
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Con made a debate intentionally designed to trap noobs. Pro was new to the site and thought they were on the Con side.
#1
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro negates the resolution.