No one is ignoring anything. The problem is the opposite of ignoring. The problem is that YOU ARE GOING TO FAR IN YOUR CONCLUSIONS.
For this specific debate, you say that we have definitively learned that the COVID vaccines do more harm than good. The authors of the study you cited to support this claim say, among other things:
"knowing the actual demographics of those who experienced an increase in serious AESI in the vaccine group is necessary for a proper harm-benefit analysis."
Therefore, you are going too far to claim that we have definitively learned the COVID vaccines do more harm than good. It could be the case that a proper harm-benefit analysis, as the authors call for, shows that they don't do more harm than good.
No one is ignoring the evidence of harms from the vaccine. Please fully understand the original paper's discussion section and don't think you are qualified to make larger claims than the authors.
In scientific research, one must design an experiment specifically to test for certain hypotheses. The authors of the study you cited did not design it to evaluate the overall harm-benefit of vaccination programs. The data also does not show what you claim it to show. Actual scientists are careful about what they claim based on the statistical evidence that they find. You say that their study proves that vaccinations definitely do more harm than good. THE EVIDENCE FROM THE STUDY DOES NOT JUSTIFY THAT CONCLUSION. See what they authors write in the Discussion section for an actual understanding of the implications of their study.
"Sir.Lancelot made apologies for the forfeit, seeming to have interruptions in life,
So conduct, equal enough,"
If this is allowed to stand, which I think it should be, then your following reason is invalidated:
"Even if they were generally bad conduct, they were at least arguments, unlike the forfeitures. Making someone sit around a full week is quite rude, and it was done multiple times. Withholding of that point where is clearly against your majority awardee, is strong evidence of overwhelming bias."
Also, see this section from the voting policy:
"People lacking in intellectual integrity will always devise more ways to cheat. If you spot some true rubbish that invalidates their argument or the spirit of debate, call it out with a vote against them on conduct (or more as warranted by the comparative arguments) and move on."
I argue that the total misrepresentation of the references that Pro cited is "rubbish that invalidates their argument" and invalidates the spirit of this debate. Therefore, I called it out with a vote against them on conduct. The cited section of the voting policy only offers some examples and does not rule out my interpretation.
Round 2:
1. US Energy Information Administration - U.S. energy facts explained
2. US Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy - Biofuel Basics
3. US Energy Information Administration - Use of energy explained: Energy use in industry
4. Scientific American - Nuclear Waste Is Piling Up. Does the U.S. Have a Plan?
5. US Energy Information Administration - Nuclear explained U.S. nuclear industry
6. Wikipedia - Greenhouse effect
7. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - SYNTHESIS REPORT OF THE IPCC SIXTH ASSESSMENT REPORT (AR6)
8. US Environmental Protection Agency - Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2021: Executive Summary
(I accidentally numbered the next one 8 too. Please add 1 to the reference numbers in the text after first 8)
9. Rennert et al. (2022), Nature - Comprehensive evidence implies a higher social cost of CO2
10. US Environmental Protection Agency - About the Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks
11. Dedoussi et al. (2020), Nature - Premature mortality related to United States cross-state air pollution
12. Stanford News Service - Living near oil and gas wells increases air pollution exposure, according to Stanford research
Round 3:
1. US Energy Information Administration - Biofuels explained: Biofuels and the environment
2. MIT Climate Portal - How efficient is carbon capture and storage?
3. Wikipedia - Motte-and-bailey fallacy
4. Wikipedia - Kettle logic
5. Media Bias Fact Check - American Enterprise Institute: Bias and Credibility
6. US Energy Information Administration - EIA’s long-term power plant projections trade off the cost and value of new capacity
7. Our World in Data - Why did renewables become so cheap so fast?
8. National Renewable Energy Laboratory - Renewable Electricity Futures Study
9. Science Direct (Academic publisher Elsevier) - Conventional Energy
10. Toppr (Pro's source for definitions of conventional and renewable energy)
11. Scientific American - Nuclear Waste Is Piling Up. Does the U.S. Have a Plan?
I keep refreshing the page, but have not yet been able to accept. As soon as I stop seeing the warning that I don't have the qualification, I will accept the challenge.
Yes, that's right. I will post my first argument soon, and you should get a notification when it is your turn to respond. There are 3 days available to post an argument.
I ran out of time, you can see the argument I was working on here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/19I65BoB_E7TVomrOT_Ok6JIiGeaibMIlhXcznV4VMQ8/edit?usp=sharing
I just added the judges that you initially listed in the forum: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9531/posts/397482
Sorry if I missed adding you as a judge this time.
No one is ignoring anything. The problem is the opposite of ignoring. The problem is that YOU ARE GOING TO FAR IN YOUR CONCLUSIONS.
For this specific debate, you say that we have definitively learned that the COVID vaccines do more harm than good. The authors of the study you cited to support this claim say, among other things:
"knowing the actual demographics of those who experienced an increase in serious AESI in the vaccine group is necessary for a proper harm-benefit analysis."
Therefore, you are going too far to claim that we have definitively learned the COVID vaccines do more harm than good. It could be the case that a proper harm-benefit analysis, as the authors call for, shows that they don't do more harm than good.
No one is ignoring the evidence of harms from the vaccine. Please fully understand the original paper's discussion section and don't think you are qualified to make larger claims than the authors.
In scientific research, one must design an experiment specifically to test for certain hypotheses. The authors of the study you cited did not design it to evaluate the overall harm-benefit of vaccination programs. The data also does not show what you claim it to show. Actual scientists are careful about what they claim based on the statistical evidence that they find. You say that their study proves that vaccinations definitely do more harm than good. THE EVIDENCE FROM THE STUDY DOES NOT JUSTIFY THAT CONCLUSION. See what they authors write in the Discussion section for an actual understanding of the implications of their study.
Lemming says in their vote:
"Sir.Lancelot made apologies for the forfeit, seeming to have interruptions in life,
So conduct, equal enough,"
If this is allowed to stand, which I think it should be, then your following reason is invalidated:
"Even if they were generally bad conduct, they were at least arguments, unlike the forfeitures. Making someone sit around a full week is quite rude, and it was done multiple times. Withholding of that point where is clearly against your majority awardee, is strong evidence of overwhelming bias."
Also, see this section from the voting policy:
"People lacking in intellectual integrity will always devise more ways to cheat. If you spot some true rubbish that invalidates their argument or the spirit of debate, call it out with a vote against them on conduct (or more as warranted by the comparative arguments) and move on."
I argue that the total misrepresentation of the references that Pro cited is "rubbish that invalidates their argument" and invalidates the spirit of this debate. Therefore, I called it out with a vote against them on conduct. The cited section of the voting policy only offers some examples and does not rule out my interpretation.
Thank you, looking forward to Slainte's post.
Thanks for accepting the challenge.
I noticed that I made a mistake copying the definition of monument from Merriam Webster: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monument.
I meant to include "a memorial stone or a building erected in remembrance of a person or event" in addition to the current line.
I accepted.
The risk is putting to a vote something that people should have the right to, like reading harmless books that feature LGBT themes.
Not a big fan of freedom of speech or academic freedom?
Do you think that young children from baptism to confirmation are only regurgitating what their parents tell them?
Bump for votes.
We can redo this if you want.
Glad to hear your story!
References:
Round 2:
1. US Energy Information Administration - U.S. energy facts explained
2. US Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy - Biofuel Basics
3. US Energy Information Administration - Use of energy explained: Energy use in industry
4. Scientific American - Nuclear Waste Is Piling Up. Does the U.S. Have a Plan?
5. US Energy Information Administration - Nuclear explained U.S. nuclear industry
6. Wikipedia - Greenhouse effect
7. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - SYNTHESIS REPORT OF THE IPCC SIXTH ASSESSMENT REPORT (AR6)
8. US Environmental Protection Agency - Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2021: Executive Summary
(I accidentally numbered the next one 8 too. Please add 1 to the reference numbers in the text after first 8)
9. Rennert et al. (2022), Nature - Comprehensive evidence implies a higher social cost of CO2
10. US Environmental Protection Agency - About the Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks
11. Dedoussi et al. (2020), Nature - Premature mortality related to United States cross-state air pollution
12. Stanford News Service - Living near oil and gas wells increases air pollution exposure, according to Stanford research
Round 3:
1. US Energy Information Administration - Biofuels explained: Biofuels and the environment
2. MIT Climate Portal - How efficient is carbon capture and storage?
3. Wikipedia - Motte-and-bailey fallacy
4. Wikipedia - Kettle logic
5. Media Bias Fact Check - American Enterprise Institute: Bias and Credibility
6. US Energy Information Administration - EIA’s long-term power plant projections trade off the cost and value of new capacity
7. Our World in Data - Why did renewables become so cheap so fast?
8. National Renewable Energy Laboratory - Renewable Electricity Futures Study
9. Science Direct (Academic publisher Elsevier) - Conventional Energy
10. Toppr (Pro's source for definitions of conventional and renewable energy)
11. Scientific American - Nuclear Waste Is Piling Up. Does the U.S. Have a Plan?
Sorry, I was just late submitting my argument. Could you give me the chance to publish in the second round?
Then I suggest the first round to be focused on constructive arguments and the second round refutations.
Should I make any suggestions to amend definitions etc. in a comment?
Do you want the first round to be focused on constructive arguments and the second round for refutations?
I keep refreshing the page, but have not yet been able to accept. As soon as I stop seeing the warning that I don't have the qualification, I will accept the challenge.
I would debate you on this topic, but I don't have the qualification for rated debates.
Yes, that's right. I will post my first argument soon, and you should get a notification when it is your turn to respond. There are 3 days available to post an argument.
Thanks for accepting my challenge. Looking forward to our debate. Good luck.
Straight to Hitler?
I'm debating on the side of not allowing parents to ban books. I can change the title.
Can you explain what you mean by "normal" to clarify the resolution?
If you make it Standard type, not rated, I would accept the challenge.