prescription medication is poison
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 14 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 15,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
No information
Pro forfeits one round, and offers a huge wall of text with a massive gish Gallup of claims that cannot all be addressed by con no matter how good he was.
As a result: Conduct to con.
The wall of text approach from pro is so absurd and so antithetical to debate, its hard for me to really render a cohesive verdict on every point he makes.
My interpretation of the resolution and how a reasonable person would view it, is that prescription medication is not just potentially harmful (which is trivial), but the harm is a primary usage and characteristic.
Pro focuses on side effects, that medication can kill, that the word itself has connotations of poison - but at no point attempts to present any argument that the primary characteristic and usage of medication is to cause harm.
Con nails pro to the wall by pointing out the cherry picking pro does by fixating only on specific cases, by pointing out that side effects do not always occur, and they simply may.
He argues that definition of the old word upon which pharmaceutical is based does not make it poison, nor does the companies being corrupt, and a few others. Con goes through the primary claims very well, and with far more patience then I would have expected.
Pros response was another wall of text. So badly formatted it was hard to determine where his additional claims start and rebuttals begin.
Pro offers little or no argument about the rarity of side effects, that drugs are not the top 4 causes of death (other than to clairfy), that pharma corruption is just as bad as pharm being poison - which may be true, but is irrelevant to the resolution. And to reiterate his issue with side effects.
Cons final argument round points this all out, that pros position is a collection of anecdotes, that being potentially harmful in some cases doesn’t mean it’s poison, and reiterating his case about side effects.
As a result, despite the near indecipherable mess that was pros argument - con clearly casts sufficient doubt on the resolution, and clearly refuted the bulk of claims.
Arguments to con.
All other points tied.
Pro forfeits one round, and offers a huge wall of text with a massive gish Gallup of claims that cannot all be addressed by con no matter how good he was.
As a result: Conduct to con.
The wall of text approach from pro is so absurd and so antithetical to debate, its hard for me to really render a cohesive verdict on every point he makes.
My interpretation of the resolution and how a reasonable person would view it, is that prescription medication is not just potentially harmful (which is trivial), but the harm is a primary usage and characteristic.
Pro focuses on side effects, that medication can kill, that the word itself has connotations of poison - but at no point attempts to present any argument that the primary characteristic and usage of medication is to cause harm.
Con nails pro to the wall by pointing out the cherry picking pro does by fixating only on specific cases, by pointing out that side effects do not always occur, and they simply may.
He argues that definition of the old word upon which pharmaceutical is based does not make it poison, nor does the companies being corrupt, and a few others. Con goes through the primary claims very well, and with far more patience then I would have expected.
Pros response was another wall of text. So badly formatted it was hard to determine where his additional claims start and rebuttals begin.
Pro offers little or no argument about the rarity of side effects, that drugs are not the top 4 causes of death (other than to clairfy), that pharma corruption is just as bad as pharm being poison - which may be true, but is irrelevant to the resolution. And to reiterate his issue with side effects.
Cons final argument round points this all out, that pros position is a collection of anecdotes, that being potentially harmful in some cases doesn’t mean it’s poison, and reiterating his case about side effects.
As a result, despite the near indecipherable mess that was pros argument - con clearly casts sufficient doubt on the resolution, and clearly refuted the bulk of claims.
Arguments to con.
All other points tied.
Pro's thesis is generally accepted, verging on tautological. All pills are poison beyond some determinable dose. Pro ought to be able to lay down a few solid proofs and win the day but Pro's argument is too schizophrenic to persuade.
Pro argues:
1. Medicine is evil sorcery. (warranted only be one possible translation of ancient Greek)
2. Drugs have many side effects, over-warranted by long lists, more than 100 side effects in the first set with many repetitions and eccentric numbering. Pro's penchant for overlisting impairs this debates readability overall.
3. Perhaps 20% of ADHD children are misdiagnosed according to one study. This is Pro's most dependable sourcing but the fact is never linked to support for thesis. Pro states that 1 million children each year but that's not in the source and obviously false.
4. Pharmaceuticals (Pro desperately needs to define this term, drugs, poison, etc.) are the 4th leading cause of death in the US. This is false- perhaps Pro meant 4th leading means of suicide?
5. Over 100,000 people die from prescription drugs (over all? not a very impressive statistic. Annually? False. Total 2017 US deaths by legal and illegal drugs is 70,237.
6. Prescription drugs are more dangerous than illegal drugs. False, most injury due to prescription drugs come from unprescribed (therefore illegal) use.
7 The US Govt. puts fluoride in water to make Americans stupid and docile. Not linked to thesis. Not warranted. The US Govt does endorse fluoridation but almost all american tap water is managed locally. Fluoride in bottled water is not regulated but most bottled water originates from public sources.
8. "They" put pharmaceutical drugs in tap water. Another long list of drugs and side effects.
9. Drugs in water can cause us to stop breathing (unwarranted)
10. Drugs in water can cause paranoia, psychosis (unwarranted unless this debate is meant to serve as evidence).
Con effectively points out false data, unwarranted claims, failed links to thesis. I think Con would have been better off talking about dosing (he does a little with fluoride) and pushing BoP at Pro. Most substances are poisonous beyond some limit when ingested, most substances are quite safe below some determinable limit. Most of this debate is meaningless without essential quantification.
R2 is less fathomable. Quotes from R1 are not well delineated from other text. Pro doubles down on false mortality claims without evidence. The weakness of Con's reasoning and evidence is frequently reinforced:
" i eat many strange plants most of these plants would interact with the medication from tap water."
"since there no way that 25 medications would be put in the waters of America to help people it must be put in there to hurt people"
"if [fluoride] was so safe why did germany put it in the water of the jews."
"do you now how many children use i can not pay attention in class as an excuse. and the dumb parents and teacher solution is to drug them up"
Con counters point by point without really offering a counter-thesis but the debate is so disorganized I think this forgivable.
Pro forfeits R3 which is probably just as well.
Pro never assembled a cohesive argument, Con gave us plenty of good piecemeal reasons to doubt Pro's claims. Arguments to Con.
Pro sources were fair in the first round, much worse in the second. The string of anti-fluoride pseudoscience blogs was particularly odious. Con only used a couple of sources, both fine.
Conduct to Con for Pro's forfeit.
Yeah. It didn’t slow my reading of the debate down.
You can understand that?
If I have no problems reading and understanding what someone says, I mostly won’t award grammar. If someone’s grammar and sentence structure prevent me from reading the debate easily - that’s when I will award grammar points.
How did neither of you give Con grammar??
We are aware of the issue. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.
“Wrick-It-Ralph copied your vote is that allowed?”
That would be a big no.
(tagging the moderators as I can no longer report the vote)
Wrick-It-Ralph copied your vote is that allowed?
Thanks for the vote.
You shouldn't really do that.
You should also remove the gaps in your arguments. That list was unnecessary as well.
2 days i have a habit of typing my stuff last minutes. i forfeited on 4 debates some not even on this site
For 3 days?
my internet died
alright
Actually that isn't what I meant. I meant these definitions:
"Poison: Any substance that can cause severe organ damage or death if ingested, breathed in, injected into the body or absorbed through the skin. Many substances that normally cause no problems, including water and most vitamins, can be poisonous if taken in excessive quantity. Poison treatment depends on the 'substance."
https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=11890
"1.0 A substance that is capable of causing the illness or death of a living organism when introduced or absorbed.
1.1 Chemistry A substance that reduces the activity of a catalyst."
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/poison
The capacity to do such harm in any quantity inherently allows you to define it as poisonous, at least in severely likely potential of any single side effect of any and all medicines.
and RationalMadman
i see what you mean
A substance that causes injury, illness, or death, especially by chemical means.
n.
Something destructive or fatal.
n.
Chemistry & Physics A substance that inhibits another substance or a reaction: a catalyst poison.
https://ahdictionary.com/
alright what i mean for poison.and the made up definition i would use for the debate.
a harmful substances intended for harm. something meant to harm someone.
its funny that you speak of water my last argument in my other prescription medication debate goes into that. "by goes into that" i mean that the government has been putting pharmaceutical drugs and fluoride in tap water
Are you not aware who his opponent is in the other debate?
It's crossed, not tiwaz. Under the provided definition, water can be a poison
Yeah I am shocked tiwaz is even standing a chance in his other debate on this. The definition of poison makes this inherently true.
You need to define your terms. What does "poison" mean in this context?