Instigator / Con
47
1503
rating
26
debates
46.15%
won
Topic
#867
Vaccination is a scam
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 7 votes and with 20 points ahead, the winner is...
Club
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 9,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
27
1551
rating
9
debates
66.67%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
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
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
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.
Hmmm, it seems we have nothing to argue, so..how's life? 😂
Round 3
Good....
I'm really busy but good
How's yours going?
lol
Doing good, although, it seems I may be losing a debate soon. I'm totally bummed. 😭
Round 4
lol
Alright, time for the closing round - let's see a big finish!
Round 5
(insert big finish here)
*stands in awe of big finish*
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. 😃😃
*******************************************************************
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.
*******************************************************************
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.
Ayyy nice
*******************************************************************
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.
*******************************************************************
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.
Welp, if it gets removed, it gets removed
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