Brain surgeons get paid too much
Debate Rounds (3)
No amount of skill is worth that much money.
Note - Brain surgeons haven't got a clue as to how the brain actually works.
To begin with, you have no source to cite the $10,000 per hour claim. Typically a neurosurgeon's salary is $395,000 starting and will increase up to $589,500. The salary is a match to how much skill and effort is required to become a neurosurgeon. To become one, you have to get a bachelor's degree (4 years of college), followed by medical school (another 4 years), a one-year internship (another year), six to eight years of residency, and take an exam and apply to recieve Board Certification. Imagine all the debt that piles up during those years in college and medical school.
On top of that, neurosurgeons have to spend many hours keeping up with the research. If they wish to specialize in the field, then many more years must be put in to be qualified in this subfield. While performing surgery, some last up to 20 hours or more meaning that neurosurgeons have to have loads of energy meanwhile poking around someone's brain where if they make a mistake can end up killing the patient or disabling him/her for life. Because of such rigorous training and the amount of skill for the job, it seems reasonable to pay them a high salary considering how few of them exist in the United States. 1 in 65,580 people in the US are neurosurgeons which comes to around 4,000 in the US. In addition, there are still vacancies.
With your last comment about neurosureons having no clue as to how the brain works, I say this,
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” R13; Christopher Hitchens.
Doctors are not trained in nutrition, so they wouldn't have a clue what causes tumours and disease in general. They are just a bunch of arrogant monkeys that think they are clever because they got high marks in the Higher School Certificate ATR. Then, they can get into medical school and be cool doctors making bid mega-dollars at the expense of the ignorant public who are gullible enough to believe that doctors have some special knowledge that they don't have. But, alas, doctors haven't got a clue about what causes tumours or disease.
It is just a big game of bluff that doctors pretend to know what disease is and how to fix it. They wear white coats and carry stethoscopes around their necks. Note - Stethoscopes are totally useless devices which tells doctors nothing about a persons overall health and physical condition. If a person has an irregular heart beat it may be a dietary problem - (otherwise the person has been poisoned by some dangerous chemical which is contained in many chemical laden foods which are sold in supermarkets.)
Your plumber analogy is absurd. To more accurate analogy is a plumber who has to fix pipes while the water is running because patients are alive. He/she can't make any spills while doing the repairs analogous to potential blood loss in the brain. On top of that, there can be serious reprecusions if the plumber so much as even make a sratch in the wrong place much like how brain surgeons deal with the brain. Not to mention that repairs to pipes can take 20+ hours to do meanwhile the plumber is very limited in how much rest they can get while still having to be percise and careful with repairs. This is all just poking around the brain in general.
You make a ridiculous claim that brain cancer is caused by a bad diet yet you do not source anything even remotely scientific to back up your claims. Brain cancer happens when the brain cells' DNA is damaged as the result of mutations in the genome. While the sources of these mutations vary, even if a bad diet can be linked to mutations, there are so many other factors that trump what little diet contributes to mutations such as exposure to radiation or carcinogens.
You also claim that brain inflammation is caused by eating grain, dairy and concentrated sugars. You only need to hit yourself in the head really hard with a hammer to realize this is not the case.
If the field of brain surgery is all but a game of bluff, wouldn't there be countless reports of screw ups. Why would people spend all those years in medical school learning a craft which according to you is not supported by science and potentially kill a person and drown in lawsuits and potentially criminal charges?
Note - I highly doubt that neurosurgeons carry stethoscopes on them as its function is highly irrelevant to their profession. If the tool serves no purpose it would just get in the way. Imagine poking around a person's brain with something dangling from your neck swinging all around.
Reply - Doctors bury their mistakes. Dead people don't talk. Doctors are protected by the system. If you try to fight against the system, the system will make every step that you make as difficult as they possibly can. Thus, most people wouldn't even bother to take on the system, because they know that the system is corrupt and is protected by an impenetrable wall of bureaucracy.
Medicine has never been supported by science. Pharmaceutical companies may supply their equipment, but that doesn't mean that the equipment will produce a better outcome than what nature can provide.
Diet can influence the performance and condition of the brain.
"Medicine has never been supported by science"
I said it once and I'll say it again:
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens.
While your link proves that diets can affect the brain, you have not proven that bad diets lead to brain cancer and inflammation.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 9 months 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||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro never meets his BoP. He's required to show that brain surgeons get paid too much, but never even establishes a real amount that these surgeons earn, much less what they should be earning. At best, he introduces doubt in the view that brain surgeons are very important, but that only suggests that they are valued higher by society than they should be, rather than assessing whether or not their monetary value is accurate. Con gives me reason to believe that they need those funds in order to pay back student loans, and that their work is so careful and precise as to warrant a high income. Pro's rebuttals simply assert the opposite, and those ignore Con's far more reliable, explained and quoted sources, not to mention ignoring the fact that Pro carries the BoP. Thus, as Pro failed in his burdens and failed to sufficiently address Con's rebuttals, Con wins on arguments. Sources also go to Con for the above reasons, particularly when Pro's only source is irrelevant to the debate.
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.