Biological weapons are a fallacy
Debate Rounds (5)
Kind Regards for this Debate. I will represent the Con side, meaning that 'Biological Weapons are not a "fallacy"', as biological weapons are in existence and were/are used.
First, it has to be addressed that the word 'fallacy' is not the correct word used in this context. A fallacy can be applied to an argument, but not a noun.
As the second step, Biological Weapon needs to be defined. As Pro did not supply a definition, I will do so.
Merriam Webster defines it as:
"a harmful living thing (such as a germ that causes disease) used as a weapon in a war".
As such, any living organism that can be harmful and is used deliberately as a weapon can be defined as a 'biological weapon'.
Therefore, Pros assumption that 'biological weapons can never be made because germs do not cause disease' does not apply, as biological weapons are by no means linked to germs.
Next there will be a rebuttal of a fallacy, which is Pro's assumption that 'Biological weapons have never been used in a battle situation in the history of mankind'. How incredibly incorrect.
In fact, biological weapons have been used for millennia, as clearly stated by this scholarly article (http://web.stanford.edu...), which in fact is an excerpt of a book.
This CDC article (http://wwwnc.cdc.gov...) describes the use of bodies infected with the plague as a means to win a siege and is, quoted, seen as " Caffa should be recognized as the site of the most spectacular incident of biological warfare ever, with the Black Death as its disastrous consequence". This happened around 1345 CE.
In 1940, the Japanese bombed the city of Ningbo in PRC with ceramic bombs filled with fleas carrying the bubonic plague, though being inefficient, this still killed an estimated 400.000 people. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk...)
I do not think I have to mention the anthrax attacks in Tokyo by the same group that released the Sarin gas, the latter affecting several thousand people, while the anthrax attacks were a total failure.
This however was not the case in the infamous anthrax letter sending case in 2001, which killed 5 people.
Looking at the evidence above, it is easy to see that biological weapons have been and most likely will be used in the future, meaning that Pro's entire statement is incorrect.
"biological weapons can never be made because germs do not cause disease". Incorrect. Biological weapons exist. If germs cause disease or not has nothing to do with this.
"Biological weapons have never been used in a battle situation in the history of mankind" Incorrect. See evidence above.
"Reason - they don't work!" Incorrect. Hundreds of thousand, though more likely millions of individuals would disagree.
Kind regards, I am looking forward to the next round.
2. The references that have been given by my opponent are very sketchy and brief. In ancient times, little was known about disease and its causes, so this can't be used as serious evidence in regards to this matter.
3. The modern incidence of warfare given by my opponent is also very brief and sketchy. My opponent hasn't explained why biological weapons were not used in World Wars I and II. Surely, Adolf Hitler would have used biological weapons if he thought that they were effective. But, no, he didn't use biological weapons because he knew that germs don't cause disease. Hitler and the Germans in world War I used halogen gases to kill Jews and to bomb the enemy. Halogen is a chemical which disrupts iodine in the body. The immune system is iodine based, thus, people die or are injured when exposed to halogen gases.
4. The 5 anthrax deaths in America was just a political deception to make people believe that germs cause disease. This is because George Bush had investments in biological warfare companies which he wanted to exploit. The letters were most probably just filled with arsenic powder which would have the same effect. The government would have covered up this by their usual means of deception. See ref -
Rebuttals and Arguments:
First of, as defined above, a biological weapon is "a harmful living thing used as a weapon in a war". It does not matter if Pro thinks this is a germ or not. That is irrelevant. This definition could apply to trained dogs, meaning that all of Pro's arguments regarding how germs do not cause disease are irrelevant. This debate never was about germs causing disease.
1.) Pro seemingly did not read the evidence. So apparently the besiegers also died because of a lack of fresh water and food? Also, they survived for over 3 years. Considering that humans die after around 3 days without water and 3 weeks without food, 3 years (over 1000 days longer) and then mysteriously started dying when their besiegers catapulted corpses of individuals who died of the bubonic plague. Though it obviously has to be seen that the estimated 50 million individuals who died due to the black death actually died due to malnourishment. According to pro at least.
2.) Really? Scholarly references are sketchy? Especially when compared to No References? Also, this debate has nothing to do with disease. It's about Biological Weapons and how they apparently don't exist.
3.) Again? Saying something is 'sketchy' but not being able to point out why does not really give credit. Also, the statement "My opponent hasn't explained why biological weapons were not used in World Wars I and II" is nonsense. First of all, it seems to have eluded Pro what I even wrote. I quote "In 1940, the Japanese bombed the city of Ningbo..." Now, I do not know if Pro knows what was going on in the 1940's, but this answers the question, or does it not? As a counter question I could now ask why Nazi Germany did not use Nuclear weapons.
However, Pro does not seem to know that Nazi Germany did have a Biological Weapons Program, as well described in 'Six-Legged Soldiers: Using Insects as Weapons of War'. However, this surely will be seen as yet another 'sketchy reference' by Pro.
This has nothing to do with 'germs' or 'disease'. As Pro does seemingly not know what either of these are, a definition will be a waste of space as it most surely will be disregarded by Pro.
As to Pro's 'reference'. Yes, I will most definitely trust a horribly made website providing anecdotal evidence by someone who most likely does not even know how to spell 'evidence'.
Pro is yet to refute any sources correctly, to provide any evidence or to fulfill their BOP of providing that Biological weapons are in fact non-existent.
Kind regards, I am looking forward to the next round..
2. Next, he is trying to wriggle out of the tight corner that he has been forced into, by claiming that the term biological weapon doesn't include germs. Quote - " This debate never was about germs causing disease" lol What next? lol
3.Quote - " The castle siege victims survived over 3 years"
Reply - So what! The food supply only lasted for 3 years, in other words. What does this prove? Answer - Nothing!
Reason - As the food supply got less and less, the quality of the food supply would have diminished. All the fresh food would have been eaten first, and then, as they had less and less food stock, they would have less and less vitamins. Thus, as you gradually reduce the vitamin quality of the food source, so disease starts to appear.
4. I have stated on previous debates that the Bubonic Plague was a result of volcanic activity in Iceland which spread volcanic ash all over Europe which destroyed the harvest for one or two years.
5. Quote - "The Japanese dropped some glass bottles full of disease (fleas) lol, on some villages in China which apparently killed 2,000 villagers." Reply - So, how did they monitor the effectiveness of these bombings? Deeeeeerrrrrrrrr?
Answer - There was no monitoring! The Japanese just made up some nice sounding figures to justify all the expense that they went to in creating these ineffective weapons. Note - This is the only recorded incidence of biological weapons being used in World Wars I and II -Note - Its pathetic! Isn't it! No wonder Hitler didn't use biological weapons, he had more sense than those silly Japs. lol
6.Nazi Germany did not use nuclear weapons because they hadn't finished developing the technology, that's why!
If the stupid Japs could create biological weapons, then why couldn't the much more advanced German technology create any? Answer - They had more sense! That's why!
7. Last, but not least. My opponents alleged 'coup de grace'. lol - The Six Legged Soldier reference.
Note - Using insects has nothing to do with biological weapons for a start. Here is a review of the Six Legged Soldier book -
Review - Fortunately, as the author points out, insects aren't very cooperative soldiers, and using them to deliver diseases is much easier said than done. Both science and military history buffs will learn much from Lockwood, a self-described skeptic with a sense of humor.
That's completes my rebuttal of my opponents argument. I hope you all get a good laugh at my opponents pathetic attempt to justify biological weapons as a viable means of destroying an enemy.
Pro does not seem to hold to their own 'numbering system', creating random numbers without actually addressing any points subsequently. I will address Pro's points using Pro's numbering of the previous round.
But first of all:
1.) Hollywood is better evidence than the one Pro provided. Oh right, Pro did not actually provide any valid evidence whatsoever, nor did I 'use Hollywood' as evidence in any way shape or form. If Pro's understanding of 'Evidence' is a meme mocking Pro's lack of any credible evidence, while Con did provide evidence throughout the round, there is a major problem in Pro's understanding of the terms 'Evidence'. Furthermore, I most certainly do not need 'boost', as Pro still has not provided anything other than opinion as to why Biological Weapons are a fallacy.
2.) How pathetic. Looking back at round one, I can be quoted stating "Merriam Webster defines it as: "a harmful living thing (such as a germ that causes disease) used as a weapon in a war".". So good job Pro for spotting this apparent 'corner' in a circle. Germs have nothing to do with this debate. A biological weapon can be a germ, but does not have to be. It can be any organism. A trained dog can be seen as a biological weapon. Are you proposing that trained attack dogs, which are effectively used as weapons, do not exist?
3.) Pro is pulling excuses and rebuttals out of thin air. This could go all day long, but in the end proves nothing. The question that I proposed, but that obviously was left unanswered, was that if apparently the besieged died of 'a lack of food' after 3 years, then why did they have the same symptoms as the besiegers, who catapulted corpses of diseased into the city, who once again had the same symptoms as the sick in the city. Strange, isn't it... It seems like the disease must have transmitted. But according to Pro that cannot be, because a lack of vitamins and food is not really transmittable.
4.) Pro cannot even quote their own sources correct. This source states something about El Salvador and not Iceland. Just 8000 kilometers off, but who cares. Furthermore, this is in connection with the History Channel, which could be seen as one of the worst pseudo historical programs out there. Also, the source talks about the Dark Ages, which is called this because of denotation of the fall of Rome and the renaissance and seen as a time of scarcity of records and improvement and oppression by the Church.
However, the most major misconception of Pro is that this caused the plague. The source states that the "Ilopongo volcanic explosion indeed triggered the chain of events that led to Dark Ages", of which the plague was a part, in a way explaining how and why the dark ages occurred, and not, as Pro assumes, that the volcanic eruption caused the plague. I quote "From there Dull and other scientists began connecting the dots, from the first recorded outbreak of the Bubonic plague — which lead to 50 million deaths – as well as the fall of the Roman Empire." as a means to explain why the dark ages happened.
This source could be compared with an explanation of how the stock crisis happened, it is looking at an event (the period of the dark ages) and is analysing why this occurred. This has nothing to do with where the plague came from, as Pro assumes.
Besides, the siege I provided was a mere 800 years after the volcanic eruption, I'm sure it's connected in an enormous, unimaginable way.
5.) Pro should take evidence serious and either refute it correctly or not at all. Quote correctly or not at all. I do not use colloquial language and most certainly will never use mentally degrading means of communication such as "lol". This displays Pro's seriousness in this debate quite clearly, not to mention the Pro provided opinion and not evidence.
Besides, Pro seems to have resentment towards the Japanese for some reason, assuming they are stupid, yet cannot provide counter evidence to my claims. This means that until Pro can provide evidence that it is not as stated, Pro's opinion is trifling. Here another source supporting Con's first source regarding Chinese death toll (http://www.nti.org...)
6.) Unbeknown to Pro, the Germans worked together with the Japanese on biological weapons during WW2, as well stated in Japanese-German relations, 1895-1945. This means that Pro's whole point is, once again, futile.
7.) Still better than Pro's evidence. Oh wait, there wasn't any.......... Also, insects are, as they are organisms, a biological entity, thus can be, as displayed by the definition of 'Biological Weapon', be the latter.
Additionally, the review does not discredit the source in any way, shape or form.
Finally, the most important statement of Pro in this round. While attempting to create an ad hominem argument, which is always flaw, Pro can neither use adequate grammar nor seems to have actually grasped what Pro is debating, in a debate which was made by Pro themselves.
"I hope you all get a good laugh at my opponents pathetic attempt to justify biological weapons as a viable means of destroying an enemy.". Really? You just made a fool out of yourself.
The title of this debate is 'Biological weapons are a fallacy'. This means that, according to Pro, biological weapons do not exist. Pro seemingly has just admitted that biological weapons in fact exist, but seems to think that this debate is about whether they are a viable means of destroying an enemy. I wouldn't care if they are or not. This debate is about whether they exist or not. And apparently they do exist.
Once again, no evidence by Pro. The only source Pro posted was horrifically misquoted and unrelated.
This means that all of Pro's rebuttals are worthless, as they are solely opinion and have no basis in fact.
Furthermore, Pro does not seem to know what they are actually debating. According to the Debate title, this debate is about whether biological weapons exist or not and that they apparently do not work nor ever have been used. The evidence proves otherwise, yet Pro still clings onto an opinion based approach supported by no evidence and nothing else than circle jerk arguments.
Kind regards, I am looking forward to the next round.
2. My opponent has used the title of the debate as his only source of what the topic is about. It is clear from the first post details, that the debate is more about the effectiveness of biological weapons then it is not about whether biological weapons exist or not. Every fool knows that biological weapons exist, that is except my opponent, who assumes that this knowledge is somehow secret and known only to a few informed individuals. Thus, my opponent is playing a deceitful game of pretending that the knowledge of biological weapons is a secret. Thus, my opponent is trying to derail the debate by using technical trickery. It is clear that my opponents whole premise is illogical and can't be maintained using fair play and evidence. It is deceitful and counter productive to use the title of a debate as the only source of the arguments area of concern. This is because the title is just an advertisement of the debate and should not be used as a self contained and source of the debate subject matter and area of discussion.
3. My opponent claims that trained dogs and dolphins can be viewed as biological weapons. Very true, and have been used many times in battle. But, how effective are these weapons? Answer - They are appalling bad and ineffective weapons. They are generally uncooperative and have as much chance of killing their own soldiers as they have of killing the enemy soldiers. There was the anti-tank dog which was used by the Russians in World War II. (40,000 dogs)
Excerpt from article -
'The first group of anti-tank dogs arrived at the frontline at the end of the summer of 1941 and included 30 dogs and 40 trainers. Their deployment revealed some serious problems. In order to save fuel and ammunition, dogs had been trained on tanks which stood still and did not fire their guns. In the field, the dogs refused to dive under moving tanks. Some persistent dogs ran near the tanks, waiting for them to stop but were shot in the process. Gunfire from the tanks scared away many of the dogs. They would run back to the trenches and often detonated the charge upon jumping in, killing Soviet soldiers. To prevent that, the returning dogs had to be shot, often by their controllers and this made the trainers unwilling to work with new dogs'.
Thus, we can see that biological weapons are an ineffective and stupid idea. In a battle situation, the dogs are too scared to run to the tanks and mostly run back to their owners who have to shot them to save their own lives. lol
4. Ref 3. Quote -'The besieged and the besiegers both died of the same disease'.
Reply - Well, that's just speculation. In those days, nobody even knew what a disease was or where it came from. Even doctors today, don't understand what causes disease, so how could people understand hundreds or thousands of years ago?
My view - The besiegers and besieged both were vitamin deficient because they had both used up all the surrounding resources and were running out of food. Thus, they both became diseased due to a lack of vitamins. 'Germs are the result of a disease, and are not the cause of it'. (Antoine Bechamp)
Note - My opponent is mixing up the siege with the dark ages. These are two separate issues, but they have the same basic cause which is vitamin deficiency. The siege was an artificiality caused famine, whereas, the volcanic activity was an unavoidable global phenomenon.
5. Ref 5. The Chinese government is one of the most corrupt government's in the world. Yet, my opponent is quite happy to use the Chinese government as a source reference though. Well, any reference that refutes my evidence has to be a good reference, eh! lol
I expect my opponent will be quoting Kim Jong-un as his next reference! lol
6. In summing up.
My opponent seems to want to win the debate by default by claiming that the title is the only source of the debate topic issues. Thus, he is a lazy debater who doesn't like to fight on fair grounds but prefers to find legal loop holes to win a debate. He shuns logic and misquotes my references many times. My opponent is running out of ideas and evidence and has resorted to skulduggery to win the debate.
Kind Regards for your reply.
I will keep this round short(er), as there is not too much to say.
Arguments and Rebuttals:
Pro has just lost this debate by, in the last round, admitting that Biological Weapons exist and is now attempting to pretend like this debate was about the effectiveness of biological weapons..
I quote Pro from round 1: "I propose that biological weapons can never be made".
I quote Pro from round 4: "Every fool knows that biological weapons exist".
Are these arguments not in clear contradiction of each other?
Furthermore I quote Pro from round 1: "Biological weapons have never been used in a battle situation in the history of mankind"
Now to comparison round 4: "In a battle situation, the dogs are too scared to run to the tanks and mostly run back to their owners who have to shot them to save their own lives"
Once again, a clear contradiction.
In the same breath Pro is stating that "They are appalling bad and ineffective weapons" (but seemingly they do 'work' in one sense or another), when compared to round 1 "they don't work!".
As for 'made weapons', it is to note that the distribution of infected fleas through 'flea bombs' has to be seen as a 'made' weapon. These fleas would not have been infected, had they not been 'made' that way, nor would they have infected anyone, had they not been made into a weapon and named weapon had been used. Pro does not deny that this happened.
Now to a few rebuttals.
2.) This is the most stupid thing I have ever heard. See above.
"my opponent is playing a deceitful game of pretending that the knowledge of biological weapons is a secret." Oh my... Really? In round one I openly displayed evidence that biological weapons exist and have been made after Pro stated "biological weapons can never be made".
"It is deceitful and counter productive to use the title of a debate as the only source of the arguments area of concern.". No. If your Debate title is 'Cats are better than dogs' and you then debate on Pro that 'Dogs are better than cats' you are contradicting yourself. Furthermore, looking at Pro's round 1 it becomes very clear that this debate is not about the effectiveness of Biological Weapons.
"I propose that biological weapons can never be made because germs do not cause disease. Biological weapons have never been used in a battle situation in the history of mankind. Reason - they don't work!"
Where do you even interpret that out of? It simply is not there and Pro is grabbing this argument out of thin air as Pro cannot win the debate by presenting any arguments and now is attempting to win via schematics.
3.) As above, Pro admitting that Biological Weapons have been used in battle, after stating in round 1 that "Biological weapons have never been used in a battle situation in the history of mankind." and for once is even using a, even if not scholarly, reference which is not proposed by conspiracy theorists who go against everything science tells them.
4.) I will not even bother rebutting this as Pro will simply make something up to rebut my argument. Either provide evidence or don't rebut. I do not care about opinion.
Just to put this out,Antoine Bechamp's germ theory is not seen as factual by any serious scientist. It's like arguing with a creationist 'scientist'... In over 100 years the opinion and evidence towards Bechamp's theory has not changed. Does this not kind of hint at something? Maybe that it is not correct?
5.) Once again, opinion. No evidence. No rebuttal supported by evidence that Cons (evidence supported) case is incorrect. Also, so what if they are more corrupt than other governments? The Japanese are not even denying this. They are admitting it! And just to top it, the Japanese are less corrupt than the U.S. (https://www.transparency.org...). Or does this not apply as they are, as stated by Pro in round 3, "stupid Japs"?
6.) Really? "Thus, he is a lazy debater".. At least I can supply evidence. And actually have won debates on here.
"prefers to find legal loop holes" Duh.. I study law....
"He shuns logic and misquotes my references many times.". And where is the evidence for this?? I corrected Pro on an incredible misquote. Show me where I misquoted anything.
"My opponent is running out of ideas and evidence and has resorted to skulduggery to win the debate.". Once again, at least I can provide evidence. To win a debate you need to have evidence that your case is correct. Depends on case to case, but for this debate this most certainly is correct.
Once again, no evidence from Pro, other than one that contradicts with previous statements (as seen above). Pro has effectively contradicted themselves, lost the debate and now is pretending that this debate actually is about something totally different.
Sorry, when I look at the debate title and Pro's first round, it is very clear that this debate is not about the effectiveness of biological weapons, but Pro stating that "biological weapons can never be made" (=do not exist) and "Biological weapons have never been used in a battle situation in the history of mankind"
Pro has admitted that both these are incorrect in this round, with, I quote, "Every fool knows that biological weapons exist" and "trained dogs and dolphins can be viewed as biological weapons. Very true, and have been used many times in battle."
In this spirit, kind regards, I am looking forward to the next round.
2. My opponent continues to play a cute little game of cat and mouse. He pretends that he doesn't understand the topic, but he is just using court room style stalling tactics to try and derail the debate. Being trained as a legal person, he knows all the dirty tricks about how to confuse issues with red herrings and other related tactics.
3. Note - A biological weapon should be regarded as a man made weapon created for the purpose of killing humans. Using fleas, dogs, dolphins and the like, are not true biological weapons because they are not man-made. When I am talking about biological weapons, I am referring to laboratory produced viruses which can kill humans. My opponent knows this, but he is playing a little pretend game of manufactured ignorance.
4. Quote - " I don't care about opinion"
Reply - Is that your opinion? lol
My opponent clearly doesn't understand the English language and makes constant contradictions and foolish remarks. Voters, please note - the poor quality of my opponents debating skills..
Quote - 'schematics'. ????????????? lol
Again, my opponent probably meant semantics. More evidence that my opponent is out of his depth and can't logically defend this issue with any competence. lol Have a good laugh voters! Then vote - Akhey!
Pro has not addressed their contradictions as pointed out by Con adequately. Pro has not provided any evidence or arguments in this entire debate and as such has not fulfilled the burden of proof, or, in fact, any proof or evidence to support any case whatsoever.
Pro has contradicted themselves with every argument made and has agreed with all of Cons points, which were supported by evidence.
1.) Correct, the instigator decides what the question is about. In the title and with their opening in Round 1. Not in Round 4 as Pro has just done.
The topic, while unclear, becomes quite obvious when reading Pro's First Round Statement, which I now will analyse:
"I propose that biological weapons can never be made" Main Proposition
"because germs do not cause disease" Reason/'evidence'
"Biological weapons have never been used in a battle situation in the history of mankind" Claim
"Reason - they don't work" Reason/argumentative support
Pro cannot claim that the main intend of this statement was to claim that biological weapons do not work. The linguistics do not add up to this proposal, whether Pro would like it to or not.
It is clear that this debate was by no means about, as Pro stated, "whether biological weapons are effective or not".
Otherwise Pro's first statement would have looked something like this:
'I propose that Biological weapons are not effective'.
Did Pro do this? No. Did Pro write anything along those lines? No. So Pro cannot claim that this debate is about a topic that suits Pro after 4 rounds and then starts claiming that "the contender has no excuses for not knowing what the debate is about". Pathetic. Seemingly Pro does not know themselves what their own debate is about.
"My opponent is quite obviously fearful of conducting a fair debate and wants to derail the debate with side issues" I provided evidence. Pro did not. I did not contradict myself. Pro did. Pro agreed with my statements, contradicting themselves from what they stated in round 1. Sorry, doesn't work like that...
2.) What a useless point being an ad hominem attack and nothing else.
I was merely debating, presenting evidence and waiting for Pro to provide counter evidence, or in fact any evidence at all. This did not happen. As such, my claims are still standing. And now Pro is attempting to pretend like this debate is about something else.
3.) Pro stated that these were biological weapons just one round prior. What is it now?
"My opponent claims that trained dogs and dolphins can be viewed as biological weapons. Very true, and have been used many times in battle"
Also, "When I am talking about biological weapons, I am referring to laboratory produced viruses which can kill humans", maybe Pro should have stated this earlier.
In round one I defined Biological Weapon as "a harmful living thing (such as a germ that causes disease) used as a weapon in a war". This could be any living organism that is used in warfare in a deliberate manner and as such made into a weapon. Pro could have spoken out against this in round 2. Did this happen? No. Pro stated this in round 5. Maybe a little too late. Like 4 rounds too late.
In addition, what about the earlier mentioned anthrax? Pro did not refute that anthrax could not kill, but admitted the whole thing happened, this anthrax most definitely suits Pro's late definition, yet Pro has nothing to say about this other than Pseudoscience and Conspiracy Websites with no evidence for any of their claims.
"My opponent knows this, but he is playing a little pretend game of manufactured ignorance.". How am I supposed to know this? Pro never stated any of this prior, but agreed with me. And in the last round Pro claims that I knew all along. Logic?
4.) No, that is not my opinion. That is my knowledge, stemming from being brought up by a university professor in an extremely academic setting and studying at university. Provide credible evidence for your claims or I don't care about what you say, as it is merely opinion and in not proven factual.
Also, what an amazing ad hominem.
"My opponent clearly doesn't understand the English language and makes constant contradictions and foolish remarks. Voters, please note - the poor quality of my opponents debating skills.." Where are those contradictions? Please quote, and not just claim something. Oh right, they aren't actually there. Pro just made that up....
As for my apparent incapability of the English language:
I meant schematics, as written there. Schematics is defined as 'of or relating to a scheme or schema', while scheme is defined as 'to make plans to do or get something in a secret and often dishonest way', which is exactly what Pro is doing.
Also, another amazing ad hominem.
Yeah, have a good laugh voters. How professional.
Pro contradicted themselves in a wide variety of ways.
Pro's Round 1, which was the most important, Pro stated that:
"I propose that biological weapons can never be made"
In Round 4: "Every fool knows that biological weapons exist"
A weapon has to be made into a weapon, used as a weapon. It is not a weapon by default.
The definition of 'weapon' makes that quite clear. 'a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage'.
If firearms were never used to kill anyone but solely used for target shooting, they would not be weapons. The same goes for biological weapons. They have to, in one way or another, be made or utilized to injure/kill. As such, Pro has contradicted themselves.
"Biological weapons have never been used in a battle situation in the history of mankind"
In Round 4: "My opponent claims that trained dogs and dolphins can be viewed as biological weapons. Very true, and have been used many times in battle"
Clear contradiction. Pro refuted themselves.
Over all, Pro neither provided evidence, fulfilled a Burden of Proof, nor made any statements that were not contradicted later.
Con provided evidence against Pro's first round statement and Pro even agreed, only to later state that the debate was not actually about what Pro had stated in round one.
Kind regards, thanks to all readers and voters.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Emilrose 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.