The Instigator
david.palbino
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
socialpinko
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

Alternative medicine should be ban.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
socialpinko
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/27/2012 Category: Health
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,857 times Debate No: 27560
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

david.palbino

Pro


We often se how people prefer to attend a witch doctor instead of a real doctor, waisting their money and some times harming their health.


As some people are incapable of realizing when their good faith is abused, governments should ban such scams.


socialpinko

Con

I accept. I'll be arguing that (a) people shouldn't be coerced into not "wasting" their money and (b) that Pro is committing a special pleading fallacy in exempting governmental action from the general norm against coercive paternalism (ex. we agree that Tony shouldn't be allowed to coerce Bob into doing things he disagrees with).
Debate Round No. 1
david.palbino

Pro


What do you think about the death of Steve Jobs, I'm asking this because it is suspected he damp himself by preferring alternative medicine which doesn’t work over regular medicine. (see Why did Steve Jobs choose not to effectively treat his cancer? In quora. Com).


This may be true or may be false, but what is clear is that people don't realize alternative mediciene is a scam.






socialpinko

Con

Pro didn't actually provide an argument here, though that should seem obvious to all readers. He simply pointed to speculation that Steve Jobs could have used alternative medicines an then points out that people might not realize some alternative medicines are scams. But now on to my own arguments. As stated above, I will be presenting two arguments.


(1) There's no reason to think that someone "wasting" their money gives another the right to coerce them into making the "right" decision. Pro hasn't attempted to give us any reason to think so either. He simply presupposes that it is the business of others what non-aggressive activities some people spend their money on. The possible counter that these choices could hurt the person making them is moot here in that we don't extend it to its logical limits. For instance, there's ample evidence that eating McDonald's in large quantities or for extended periods of time has adverse health affects. But that doesn't give anyone the right to coerce someone else into not eating at McDonald's whenever they want, even if that person is ignorant of the health effects of their choices. The choice is supremely theirs to make.


(2) Pro has also committed the special pleading fallacy in his case. Why does he think that an institution like the State is automatically immune to common societal norms which bind everyone else? If I flat out said you weren't allowed to do things I didn't approve of beforehand on threat of force of fine, you'd justifiably resist. So how is the State doing it any different? Pro is unable to give an answer.


Counter-Proposal.


Pro has brought up a legitimate problem in society. While not in itself justifying the use of coercion, that doesn't mean that there's nothing that we can do to stop it. No one knowingly employs the use of alternative medicinal services that they know are ineffective or potentially harmful. One must *think* that they will be helpful. Therefore, simply sharing information about phony alternative medicines can do a great deal of good in (non-aggressively) preventing people from potentially harming themselves. Energy and resources should go into informing people of the dangers of certain alternative medicines, not into practices that purport to forcefully control their individual choices.
Debate Round No. 2
david.palbino

Pro

Currently if you buy cigarretes you get a warning saying: smoke kills
but if you buy homeopaty: you don't get any warning
We are all the state, and we should stop thouse kinds of scams.
socialpinko

Con

Pro both failed to defend a case for the resolution and didn't bother to attempt to refute either my counter-argument or my counter-proposal, instead choosing to merely regurgitating an old anti-alt. medicine slogan. There's nothing for me to refute here.


Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
"We are all the state"

...made me cringe.
Posted by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
Was that serious or did your case get cut off at the very beginning?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by utahjoker 4 years ago
utahjoker
david.palbinosocialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: pro doesn't know anything about the medicine of herbs and natural oils
Vote Placed by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
david.palbinosocialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro used the word "homeopaty" in his R3, I have no idea whether that was a new word coined by him or what. As to the arguments, Con won because Pro basically does not give any arguments. He only gives assertions, and only a little of that. Time wasting.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
david.palbinosocialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: pro didnt make much of a case against alternative medicine at all, in fact he made no arguments at all in round 2 and the only argument he made in round 3 was that it didnt have warning labels, whcih doesnt even constitute that something needs to be banned. Con's case went largely unrefuted and he had met his BOP 10 times over.
Vote Placed by Chicken 4 years ago
Chicken
david.palbinosocialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's Round 3 is the RFD. It all holds true and theres no need for further evaluation. Anyone who actually reads this debate will see why.