Instigator / Pro

OrwelliusofCicero

1517

rating

debates

100.0%

won

Topic

#3110

Resolved: Frankincense should be Standardized and endorsed as a Medicine by Doctors and pharmacies

Status

Finished

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

Winner & statistics

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 4 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

OrwelliusofCicero

Tags

Health

Parameters

Publication date: 06.14.2021 08:36PM
Last updated date: 07.27.2021 01:57AM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 5
Time for argument: Three days
Max argument characters: 30,000
Voting period: Two weeks
Point system: Multiple criterions
Voting system: Open

Contender / Con

TheUnderdog

1498

rating

debates

50.0%

won

Description

DEFINITIONS:
Frankincense-" a fragrant gum resin from trees of a genus (Boswellia of the family Burseraceae) of Somalia and southern coastal Arabia that is an important incense resin and has been used in religious rites, perfumery, and embalming"- Merriam webster dictionary definition.
Medicinal-"A substance, be it a plant, or any other kind, that has been proven to have healing properties (has actual medicinal use)".

STRUCTURE:
R1- PRO Constructive & CON Constructive (Constructive as in setting the foundation to which the debates later rounds shall be made on, which is to say, mostly just opening arguments and main sources not really a response to either argument).
R2-3- Fluid attack/defense. No set structure here. (Just don't forget about your past statements).

RULESET:
1. No new arguments made in the final round
2. No trolling
3. You must follow the debate structure
4. No plagiarism
5. Must follow debate definitions.

RULESET PENALTY:
If the ruleset is broken, the penalty will be the loss of a conduct point. By accepting the debate, the contender accepts the RULESET and the RULESET PENALTY.

Round 1

OrwelliusofCicero

06.24.2021 07:20PM

Pro

Forfeited

TheUnderdog

06.24.2021 08:36PM

Con

Side Effects of Frankincense Oil (healthfully.com) states that some side effects from Frankincense are:

Gastrointestinal Side Effects
Blood-Thinning Effects
Allergic Reaction

I fail to see why something should be a medicine if there are potentially significant side effects.

Round 2

OrwelliusofCicero

06.27.2021 04:26AM

Pro

I apologize for not responding sooner. I had no idea anyone had even responded to this debate, and was just in the process of creating a couple of new debates, of which I would argue are of a much higher importance, and duality than this. (controversially speaking of course). But that isn't very relevant right now. I just wanted to explain myself. So with that much needed apology out of the way. Let's begin.

First of all, I would like to point out that my oppositions reasoning is severely flawed in numerous ways. Specifically concerning his reasoning that a substance that has potentially severe side effects, such as Frankincense should not be standardized. This proposition is simply absurd and shows just how little my opposition actually understands of the standardization process, or how products, specifically medical products are standardized. His words were, and I quote-"I fail to see why something should be a medicine if there are potentially significant side effects." First of all it is important to note that every single standardized medical substance on Earth has "potentially significant" side effects. In fact every single substance known to man has the potential to be lethal in some way, shape, or form. Even air has the potential to be dangerous if administrated incorrectly. And that especially goes towards standardized and prescribed medical substances as well (it's also one of the reasons as to why standardization can actually benefit how frankincense is produced and applied/given to people/customers). Standardization of a product can help improve the quality, distribution, and the better usage of safety measures for said product. Another thing I would like to point out is that your source talks about Frankincense oil, and Frankincense oil only, and even so it quite literally clerifys that it's still better than some of it's other, more artificial alternatives/counterparts. What I find hilarious is the fact that the "source/article" that you used even talks about how Frankincense oil still has good uses, and that " Some side effects are possible, but the MSKCC notes that frankincense seems to have fewer negative effects than drugs that treat inflammatory conditions, such as steroids and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs." Which means that your own source admits that the "potentially dangerous " side effects that you speak of, are A. No where near as dangerous (for the most part) than their artificial drug counterparts, and that B. Nor are they any where near as prevalent either.

So with all of this having been said, I believe that I have proved that the standardization of Frankincense would in fact be a much, much better idea, than barring it from such a process. Not only this, but I have shown that my opponents arguments are not only inherently flawed, but his own source in fact counteracts his own points, in fact one could argue that he was being extremely misleading with his usage of the terms related to said "Article". Also, I would argue that I have used more reputable sources than my opposition, aside from using his own as an example, I would argue that my sources on the subject/matter at hand are for more reliable, reputable, and trustworthy. Than his was. So, with that having been said, I now leave it to the jury to make sense of this whole conundrum.

Sources:

1. https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/science/toxicology/index.cfm - concerning the potential for all substances in general having the potential of being toxic, not specifically concerning those of a medical nature though.

2. Side Effects of Frankincense Oil (healthfully.com) : My oppositions "Source".

3.https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27117114/#:~:text=Recently%2C%20increasing%20interest%20in%20natural,anxiolytic%20and%20anti%2Dneurotic%20effects. : The increasing usage of Frankincense in medical practices, and treatments.

4.https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29642127/ : A persons personal experience with said oils, concerning cancer treatment.

TheUnderdog

06.27.2021 03:28PM

Con

You changed my mind. Congrats.

Round 3

OrwelliusofCicero

06.30.2021 03:28PM

Pro

Forfeited

TheUnderdog

07.03.2021 03:28PM

Con

Forfeited

Round 4

OrwelliusofCicero

07.06.2021 03:28PM

Pro

Forfeited

TheUnderdog

07.07.2021 01:57AM

Con

I don't know what else there is to say. I made a gamble and I lost.

Round 5

OrwelliusofCicero

07.10.2021 01:57AM

Pro

Forfeited

TheUnderdog

07.13.2021 01:57AM

Con

#10

Forfeited

Barney

07.16.2021 03:27AM

#18

-->

@OrwelliusofCicero

You forfeited twice as much.

I'm seriously surprised my vote hasn't been outweighed by a bunch of others yet. If it gets to within a few days like this, remind me and I'll reevaluate.

OrwelliusofCicero

07.15.2021 08:01PM

#17

-->

@Barney

Brooo, why you do this to me, he forfeited lmao. :(, now I'm probably going to lose lol. It's ok though, I just can't believe you went to the dark side :(((((((((((((. (Totally extremely sad and betrayed right now m8t).

OrwelliusofCicero

07.13.2021 06:06PM

#16

-->

@Intelligence_06

I think I should win, he forfeited, so I saw no reason, and still see no reason as to why I should continue this debate after my opponent forfeited. Instead I'm working on other projects, and pet peeves of mine. Sorry if that's a bad answer, my apologies nonetheless.

Intelligence_06

07.11.2021 09:20AM

#15

Concession vs FF. Which one wins?

Intelligence_06

07.06.2021 03:35PM

#14

-->

@TheUnderdog

@OrwelliusofCicero

wake up

OrwelliusofCicero

06.29.2021 12:16AM

#13

-->

@DeadFire27

Yeah I agree, my formatting wasn't very good in this debate, but that's mostly because I was busy, and wasn't taking this debate seriously.

Nyxified

06.28.2021 06:52AM

#12

-->

@OrwelliusofCicero

The #1 spot on the leaderboard is occupied by oromagi. It would be quite a spectacle if your opponent conceded and you still lost, so I agree you won lmao. I look forward to reading your future debates or participating in them myself! I hope that I can prove to be a formidable opponent for you as well in due time.

When it comes to formatting, I am very ~overzealous~. In person debating hammers home road-mapping so much that I basically present a very simplified version of my argument at the beginning of my speech and then go further in-depth (this is non-standard, but very effective, I've found). This is to say that I am far from worlds greatest example, but I would definitely say that treating your writing more like a short story and less like a forum post (table of contents, paragraphing, formatting, etc...) would definitely improve your arguments if only in the ability of others and I to understand them.

The resolution itself, as I mentioned prior, seems nearly impossible to defeat. I can not think of any way for con to make affirmative arguments , only to make rebuttals, which at that point pro wins by default simply because they can present affirmative arguments to begin with (in my opinion and experience).

DeadFire27

06.28.2021 03:34AM

#11

-->

@OrwelliusofCicero

I have to tell you. You're more formidable than I thought you were. However, try improving formatting. One huge paragraph doesn't look pleasing to the eyes.

OrwelliusofCicero

06.28.2021 12:07AM

#10

-->

@Nyxified

Thanks! I think I won this one lmao. However I will say this though, this was really just a starter debate for me. The debates I really wanna have are going to be around much, much more controversial subjects, and I believe that they have the potential to be hall of gamers too. I would like to have them with people like undefeatable, Ragnar, mrchris,faux law, and Ramshutu. Also that guy who is number one on the leaderboard. (Sorry I forgot your name.) fruit inspector seems like an interesting opponent as well.

Nyxified

06.27.2021 07:39AM

-->

@OrwelliusofCicero

Best of luck!

OrwelliusofCicero

06.27.2021 04:27AM

Not my best response, but I'm a bit busy right now. See you guys later for now.

OrwelliusofCicero

06.25.2021 03:07AM

-->

@Nyxified

Yeah sorry. I'm going to respond now. But still. TheUnderdog is being kind of funny lol.

Nyxified

06.21.2021 05:56PM

After further looking into it, I've found evidence to suggest there isn't good reason to believe it should be standardized. I have not, however, found good reason to believe it shouldn't be standardized. I don't feel like con can have a good position in this debate for that reason.

Nyxified

06.20.2021 12:06AM

I feel any arguments I make in this debate would be heavily centred around the lack of high quality, extensive studies regarding the use of frankincense and the possible side effects. I'll have to do some more research, especially with regards to what constitutes sufficient or insufficient evidence for the standardization of any medical treatment before I'm confident. I'll check back soon if this is still open.

TheUnderdog

06.19.2021 11:49PM

-->

@OrwelliusofCicero

I agree but am tempted to take this debate thinking you won't respond and I can merely make a claim giving me the win.

TheUnderdog

06.18.2021 07:47PM

-->

@OrwelliusofCicero

I don't know too much about Frankincense.

OrwelliusofCicero

06.15.2021 03:31PM

-->@Undefeatable

True, sorry about that, that's a very good point. I'll get rid of, or edit this one. Thanks, undefeatable.

Undefeatable

06.14.2021 11:10PM

-->

@OrwelliusofCicero

This looks like a truism. Would you like the harder, "Frankincense should be Standardized and endorsed as a Medicine by Doctors and pharmacies"?

ILikePie5

07.17.2021 03:59PM

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:

Concession

Intelligence_06

07.16.2021 06:25AM

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 Arguments outweigh Con's arguments. Con immediately started with an argument that basically said that there are side effect to this drug, but to common sense, a medicine would work if the benefits outweigh the side effects, which is exactly what Pro argues in the next round with more sourcing than Con. One round arguments for both and Con did not even attempt to refute Pro's R2 arguments despite having the chance of doing so.

Legibility is the same, readable for both.

The structure was violated by both as both forfeited, however due to that Con conceding and forfeiting less, Conduct goes to Con.

Barney

07.14.2021 03:33AM

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:

This will be a weird one as it is counter to a concession, but BoP failure from pro combined with them forfeiting 80% of the debate tip it, along with the desire to give meaningful feedback with a little weight (I fully expect my vote to be outweighed by a bunch of others).

So con makes a snippet of an argument that it is potentially bad (in short, some people are allergic to some things). Pro counters that such is poor reasoning, even pointing out con's source spoke just of one form of the frankincense (strongly implying there are indeed others). And that's where the arguments end. No actual points in favor of frankincense were proposed.

This is a common failing for truism debates, that the instigator considers things self evident, so does not bother putting in the minimal amount of work to properly claim their nearly free win.

Sources (leaning pro, but ultimately still tied):
Con was the only one who integrated any. That said, pro was able to pick about con's source making it pretty much null if not outright leaning in his favor (a direct quotation from it would help). I wish I saw more of this time of clash.
Pro then claims to have had much better sources, via source spam. I don't reward source spam. If no data is drawn from them into the arguments, they get no credit in impact analysis.

Legibility (tied):
Nothing to say, as both were fine.

Conduct (con):
Normally for a concession, I would give con conduct at the expense of arguments. As is, I am leaving that unfactored...
However, pro's choice to miss 4 rounds, is literally twice the weight of con missing 2. I would prefer to leave this vote argument only, but it's hard to ignore that bad of a conduct violation.

Sum1hugme

07.13.2021 06:11PM

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:

Concession.