DTaP vaccines for children under 6 months of age may cause autism.

In earlier comments I recommend to DrSpy that he look at Trent0405's debates for examples of concise arguments, then trent comes around and writes a 3 part RFD longer than any debate he's ever made. WTF?

DTaP VACCINES for CHILDREN UNDER 6 MONTHS of AGE MAY CAUSE AUTISM

PRO's set up is an "absence of evidence" trap. It was MMR and not DTaP that was fraudulently linked to autism by Wakefield in '98. When Wakefield was discredited, true believers and profiteers went looking for other big pharmas to sue. There's not much literature disproving DTaP as a cause for autism because there are no credible concerns that DTaP has any relationship to autism. I could set up a debate saying masturbation may cause blindness and challenge my opponent to find one credible study refuting my claim because there aren't any studies because no credible scientist would waste time and money studying the manifestly untrue.

Anti-vaxxers used to claim thimersol was linked to autism but after thimersol was removed from most vaccines at CDC request 20 years ago without improving the autism rate, thimersol was mostly set aside as a villain. The big 2018 Tdap study in pregnant women effectively disproves PRO- but PRO asked for DTaP, not Tdap.

Furthermore, this VOTER notes that PRO did not offer a single affirmative argument supporting a link between DTaP and autism suggesting even PRO is not convinced the thesis is true.

NEVERTHELESS, PRO wins this. PRO's thesis is a trap but traps are not disallowed by DART and often win debates when well sprung. I think PRO has done the research, knows no one study fulfills PRO's specific request so PRO only has to explain how each offered study does not quite meet PRO's specification. CON didn't have a lot of ground to go to but squandered sympathy earned in early rounds with lower effort arguments in later rounds:

" I don't even know why he invited me to this and show such a piss poor attempt at reading, and trying to manipulate with screwed up definitions"

CON should have gone for conduct and source points and fought like hell for spelling and grammar.

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Nevets // Mod action: [Removed]

>Points Awarded: 6 points to Con

>Reason for Decision:
I feel Con definitely won the argument. Unless Pro can prove that the Scientific reputable studies provided by Con, from the scientific community, are wrong, then we only have Pros word for it that they do not prove Dtap, and as it is his word against the Scientific community Con is debating for, then it could be possible that Pro is misunderstanding the scientific studies.
And Con definitely provided the more reliable sources in her/his opening argument. All reputable scientific based studies. Con can do no more than this. It is not Cons fault that Pro will not accept this.
And i feel Pro also used only one "real" argument, that was accusing over and over Con of failing to comply with his rules of focusing purely on Dtap. However Pro did not truelly once tackle Cons arguments by stating "why" he feels those studies do not support her scientific knowledge.

>Reason for Mod Action:
The Voting Policy is clear in its guidelines regarding point allocations for sources:
"Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate
Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support
Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's."
In addition argument-point allocations must include arguments and counterarguments. A good portion of the debate was excluded from the final RFD. While that is fine, please explain why the bulk of arguments do not matter.
As far as conduct, the Voting Policy explicates that a conduct point should be awarded when "poor conduct was either excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate." While not engaging in a debate may warrant a conduct violation, please explain how it warrants a point allocation and, pursuant to the Voting Policy, compare both user's behavior.
Thank you for your time, here is the Voting Policy in full for your perusal:
https://info.debateart.com/statements/code-of-conduct#voting-policy
You may re-cast your vote, but please keep this in mind.
************************************************************************

Agreed, which is why I rankle at such comments by climate alarmists who claim that their science is "in." A science that is, at best, 200 years old. Compare to sciences such as physics, astronomy, geology, which are thousands of years old, and still do not make that claim.

The language used in such studies, thematically reminds me of your argument against the word IF.

Pretty much any normal person would state "this proves X," whereas professional scientists are stuck with things like "this strongly implies X... subject to further analysis."

Wow, just in reviewing Con's Round 1 argument, and in Pro's round 2 response, I find 3 glaring issues against Con's argument:
1. Con's list of 12 studies are full of references to "evidence favors," "Exposures suggest," no significant effect,"meta analysis suggests," and "might be attributable to chance." Fully 7 of teh 12 cited sources left allowance for the possibility of relationship. That is hardly conclusive evidence of a lack of relationship.
2. Pro's round 1"Dr. Plotkin" argument, revealing that the good doctor would proceed with DTaP vaccine even lacking empiric evidence is not convincing for Con's argument.
3. Pro's round 1 study of Con's 12 studies demonstates citable instances where all 12 fail to show relevance to the precise vaccine DTaP, let alone to consistent age-group related study. That's enough on which to comment. I will be voting on this dfebate, and cannot yet say how I will vote, but these three examples are telling.

It's generally best to not accuse voters of being unable to read. And specially in the case of Trent, he clearly put the time into reading the debate, and made a detailed ruling based on his interpretation of the Burden of Proof. It is further unlikely that he has any agenda with his numerous votes.

One thing you can do, is advertise the debate to try to attain more votes. Just do so neutrally (ask for votes, not for the voters to vote any certain way). A good place to start on this, would be the vote request thread in the main forum: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3492/vote-requests

I am so glad that the truth is coming out in the votes.

Dont let these antivaxxers try to sneak in their agenda. The truth will always win!!

Trent needs to learn how to read.

RFD 3/3

CONDUCT

Throughout the debate Con demonstrated some lacklustre conduct as seen below.

“My opponent is clearly just trying to find on a technicality that vaccines cause autism. He is probably going to use this debate as some anti-vaxx propaganda.”

“It is hard to have an intelligent debate when the opponent ignores clear information, and can't admit they are wrong.”

“I hope the judges can read better than my opponent. I don't even know why he invited me to this and show such a piss poor attempt at reading, and trying to manipulate with screwed up definitions.”

Debates are built to put ideas against each other, not unnecessary insults that only serve to hurt the feelings of your opposition. It seems as though Con’s frustration resulted in them neglecting this fact unfortunately. In contrast, Pro demonstrated some great conduct throughout the debate as seen below.

“With the greatest respect, TheJackle has dropped an info bomb on me, with more noise than I would have hoped for. I do want to commend TheJackle for an impressive amount of work that was put into their response, albeit very limited relevant material was included.”

“I thank my opponent for a quick response. This does not need to be drawn out. It is unfortunate that emotion and distraction appeared to prevail in the last argument.”

Pro avoids retaliation and even complements his opponent at times, this is great conduct.

S AND G

No problems from either side.

SOURCES

No severe problems on either side. Moreover, whilst some studies presented by Con may have lacked relevance to a degree, I see no reason why a marginal lack in relevance warrants a loss of this point.

RFD 2/3

Study 1- Con states that the study shows that DTaP vaccines don’t cause autism with no quote from the text itself. Pro states that the study fails to show a causal relationship between autism and the DTaP vaccine, but does not rule it out. Con merely gives a brief summary of the study in R2 that lacks quotes or a proper rebuttal. This study appears to side with Pro, as it doesn’t firmly state that DTaP vaccines cause autism, but leaves it up for question, thus supporting the notion that the DTaP vaccine may cause autism. However, it isn’t clear that the study looks at young children, but it is still a great resource to prove that the DTaP vaccine may cause autism.

Study 2- Con uses a quote that merely shows that MMR and thimerosal-containing vaccines don’t cause autism. But, as Pro points out, this is irrelevant to the resolution as it ignores the DTaP vaccine and children under 6 months of age. Also, it was established that DTaP doesn’t contain thimerosal as of now, so the “thimerosal-containing vaccines” section is irrelevant.

Study 3- Nothing is offered by Con as it relates to DTaP vaccines in R1. Pro states that the study spends little to no effort on DTaP vaccines, but it does note that DTaP vaccines are linked to asthma as Pro points out.

Study 4- Once again Con’s quote of the study looks at MMR and thimerosal, unrelated to the debate.

Study 5- This study looks at vaccines in general. Pro says that the study fails to observe DTaP vaccines. But, in R2 Con states that the study does indeed observe DTaP vaccines, although a quote to support this would be appreciated, but Pro never pushed for one. However, in R2, Pro notes that the study doesn’t look at children under 6 months of age, once again a quote would be appreciated. So, this study almost debunks Pro’s claim, but a lack of information about the study leaves me with the impression that DTaP vaccines could still cause autism for children under the age of 6 months.

Study 6- This study only compares thimerosal free vaccines and vaccines with thimerosal in them. So, it’s irrelevant to the resolution.

Study 7- This study ignores the resolution once again. It never even looks at the DTaP vaccine and its impact on young children.

Study 8- Apparently this study excludes the DTaP vaccine as Pro states in R2, nor does it observe young children, so it’s irrelevant.

Study 9- Con shows a study that states DTaP isn’t linked to autism, Pro in R2 even says the study looks at young children. Pro says the study focuses on thimerosal, and says that DTaP vaccines lack thimerosal in the United States, this debate was never limited to the United States of America. This study clearly shows that DTaP for infants is not linked to autism.

Study 10- The study does look at young children, but it’s just another study about thimerosal. As a result, it’s not relevant to the resolution.

Study 11- Another study which looks at thimerosal containing vaccines, does this include DTaP? Con never says it does so I would have to make a few assumptions to make this side with Con, although I would still treat this as a valid study for Con to point to.

Study 12- It isn’t clear that this study includes DTaP, but it does focus on young children. Just like study 11, I have to make some assumptions for this study to prove Con’s position, although it is still a valid study for Con to use.

In short, 3 of the studies appear to prove Con’s point, but one seems to side with Pro, whilst the others don’t firmly support either side well enough, although I would say that many tilt toward Con’s side. Pro must win arguments purely because the word “may” is in the resolution, even if the totality of the evidence sides with Con, some doubt was raised by Pro by flipping study 1.

RFD 1/3

ARGS

For one, the usage of the word “may” means that Con must prove that the notion “DTaP vaccines for children under 6 months of age may cause autism” is certainly not true, meaning he has a massive BoP.

The main problem I have with Pro’s argument is that he fails to argue that the DTaP vaccines for children under 6 months of age causes autism, although he doesn’t have to, it would do him wonders to attempt to prove it does cause autism as it would raise quite a lot of doubt in my mind. Instead, he tries to rebut the assertion that DTaP vaccines cause autism, which is fine, but not preferable. Whilst he may have tried to be a little more persuasive with his Dr. Plotkin argument, the fact that the IOM couldn’t offer a study that states DTaP vaccines don’t cause autism doesn’t indicate that there isn’t any study that shows that DTaP vaccines don’t cause autism. Furthermore, Con offers 12 studies which show vaccines do not cause autism. In continuation, several of these studies relate to the substance “thimerosal.” It appears that thimerosal does not cause autism, but it is not a substance present in DTaP vaccines as of now, and even if it was in the past, it appears that the resolution is referring to DTaP vaccines as they are today In America. Anyhow, here is my take on the studies offered, keep in mind that I opted to go off of the quotes and interpretations offered in the debate, I will not be digging through the studies myself to keep the vote relevant to the debate and the debate only.

I am curious to see the justifications for the judging.

I thank all judges for taking the time to read. I don't think I have read so many studies in such a short period of time before.

Any good voter, votes based on the debate content, instead of merely their agreement or disagreement with the notion.

What a fucking waste. This antivaxxer does nothing but play word games and try to ignore facts. I hope the judges see through that crap. It can't be on the record that people agree with his bullshit.

Without yet reading this, I am interested in seeing what evidence to support the hypo theoretical "may" is in place. May is a dangerous term to put into a resolution, as without supporting evidence to establish some small degree of probably, the debate becomes a truism.

I prefer a shorter argument- easier to read, assess for voting. Look at trent0405's debates for some good examples of concise argument

I am glad you cant change it. I think it is horrific conduct. The setter should have figured it out ahead of time. It is not my fault that the evidence is overwhelming.

typical

There's no way to change the character limit now. You and your opponent might agree to an extension to be posted in the comments or something, but no judge is obligated to read it.

Is there any way we can increase the character limit If my opponent agrees. He has dropped an impressive quantity of studies, and I will need the space to address them.

Back when I was in school with full easy access to academic journals, I would have jumped at this.

Anyway, best of luck to you.