Germ theory is a fraud
Debate Rounds (3)
Just to clarify, my opponent is making the claim against the norm in the scientific community; therefore, my opponent has the burden of proof and must show that germ theory is a fraud.
Also a couple definitions:
Germ theory: The germ theory of disease states that some diseases are caused by microorganisms. These small organisms, too small to see without magnification, invade humans, animals, and other living hosts. Their growth and reproduction within their hosts can cause a disease. https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
Fraud: Fraud is a broad term that refers to a variety of offenses involving dishonesty or "fraudulent acts". In essence, fraud is the intentional deception of a person or entity by another made for monetary or personal gain. Fraud offenses always include some sort of false statement, misrepresentation, or deceitful conduct. http://criminal.findlaw.com...
Not that it's super hard to figure out what those mean, but now we don't have any questions or any loose ground on the matter.
I suppose I'll just make the statement that my opponent has not fulfilled his burden under the resolution.
And according to Mayo Clinic (http://www.mayoclinic.org... ) microorganisms like bacteria, fungi, viruses, and parasites (germs) cause diseases in the human body.
I've fulfilled my burden by negating the resolution and affirming the scientific norm, and my opponent still needs to provide some evidence.
Thank you for reading.
2. The Mayo Clinic doesn't mention any thing about causes. This is a common omission of germ theory advocates. Germs don't appear unless there is a cause for them to appear. In most cases, the human body generates its own disease which is a reaction to toxic chemicals or vitamin deficiency.
3. Nature doesn't have any diseases. Disease is restricted only to humans. Animals in natural surroundings never get sick. The only instances of animals getting sick is when those animals eat or are infected with human made chemicals which cause the disease or problem. Some examples would be - Tasmanian Devil - Cancer caused by herbicides, insecticides, fire retardants, plastics, rubbish tips and poison baits. Bees - Colony Collapse Disorder, Varroa and Acarapis Mites - These are just the result of insecticide spraying which causes these problems.
Note - The authorities try very hard to ignore the causes of disease so that they can't be blamed as being part of the cause. Thus, the pharmaceutical industry and government bodies are protected against litigation and prosecution. You will never hear a media report on a disease which highlights the true cause. The media will never say, for example - "that the Tasmanian Devils are being poisoned by toxic chemicals in the environment". In order to find the true cause you have to seek out secretly produced research documents which never reach the public's notice.
4. The main cause of human diseases are improper diets, lack of sanitation, eating stale food, faecal infection of water supply, chemical poisoning and over processing of food. Humans have adopted an unnatural diet which nature never intended. The human body can't handle or deal with the foods that humans eat, thus, they get sick and blame it on germs as being the culprits. Universities support germ theory because because they get funding from the pharmaceutical industry and germ theory generates a lot of profit for the health industry in general.
Thank you for that post.
I would like to make a couple observations before beginning.
O1) My opponent literally has no evidence. While he does actually use reasoning on his side, his case is completely unsupported by any sources whatsoever.
O2) My opponent makes a lot of very big claims. I will argue against them from a rational standpoint; however, keep in mind that my humoring his arguments is not conceding their signficance. I only wish to debate my opponent on all grounds, not just the grounds I personally deem important.
I will now back up my argument:
1) Germ theory is backed up by scientific research and reasoning.
I will explain how bacteria and viruses cause diseases.
Bacteria will use a body to reproduce and often times emits toxins that harm the human body. They also harm our cells by pushing against them (crowding the surrounding cells) and using our energy for their purposes.
Viruses cause diseases by infecting a cell and using the cellular material to reproduce other viruses. These viruses spread to other cells and continue destroying our cells for the purpose of reproduction.
    
1) My opponent makes a claim that isn't backed up. We know the nature of diseases due to scientific research and can reasonably assume that these pathogens simply had enough material to reproduce without killing off a species. Keep in mind that pathogens are generally as small or smaller than our cells meaning they have a lot more space to consume than we may perceive. Not to mention, many diseases can live scores of years without a host.
2) My opponnent needs to provide evidence here. There is not reason to believe this statement without evidence. And I have provided evidence explaining how pathogens cause diseases.
3) Animals actually do catch and carry diseases. 
Several diseases including:
Bovine virus diarrhoea
All of these affect some or all animals, and they're caused by either viruses or bacteria (if it doesn't say virus then it was caused by bacteria).
Those were just a few examples from the list in source 6.
My opponent also needs to provide some sort of evidence to backup that the only reason germ theory is a thing is because the government pays people to believe it, which is ridiculous in the first place because germ theory was developed in the late 16th century. 
And to respond to his claim on cancer, no one who knows about cancer believes that pathogens cause it. Cancer is a mutation in cells causing them to lose their sense of touch. In other words, they don't realize that they should stop growing, so they keep reproducing until a tumor does something harmful. However, germ theory does not claim that all ailments are caused by pathogens. It merely states that pathogens are a way that the body gets infected and becomes ill.
4) My opponent fails to explain how humans contracted diseases before food was processed or diets became unnatural. Diseases (or plagues from more ancient history) came way before food was processed.
Even further, my opponent also fails to explain why an improper diet causes diseases. Why does eating fesces cause serious ailment? Isn't it just stuff I've already eaten? It would have to carry the environment for a certain pathogen to invade my body the second time around.
And it does. One of those pathogens is called Cryptosporidium parvum. 
So at this point in the debate, you can either take my opponent's word for it that germ theory is a fraudulant theory, or you can take the word of 8 sources (not the only 8 sources I could find, but I don't have the space to post 100 of them). My opponent has failed to properly uphold his side, and I have more than fulfilled my duty as con. Thank you for reading.
Let"s throw logic into the rubbish bin!
That"s essentially what my opponent is saying, but why would she say this?
What are her motives?
What has she to gain?
Well, she wants to win the debate obviously!
But what do the universities, governments and medical authorities have to gain?
Nothing much"""..? Not really!
They have plenty to gain, by telling lies and promoting germ theory, billions of dollars of profits can be made every second of the day by pharmacy companies all over the world.
2. Note - My opponent has given a list of animal diseases. These diseases are all for domesticated animals which are fed grain food supplements, live in fields that are covered with modern fertilizers and are treated with dangerous chemicals to stop tick infestations.
These animals don't live in wild unrestricted areas where they would be able to seek out nutrients that they need. This is a poor example to prove her point. Why didn't she use an animal that lives in the wild as her example?
Answer - Because animals in the wild do not get disease! Point proven by omission!
3. Can we trust government organisations, universities and pharmacy companies to use as unbiased references?
Answer - No we can't!
Reason - They all rely on germ theory to make a living.
Question - How much money would a AMA doctor make if germ theory wasn't an accepted theory?
Answer - They would make nothing!
Thus, the medical system itself can't be used as a reference in order to determine if germ theory is correct or not.
Its like asking a bank robber to look after your money for a while.
4. Benjamin Franklin said "Cure sells by the pound, while prevention only sells by the ounce".
Today patients pay $50,000 for one course of chemotherapy. The real cost to manufacture the medicine is probably only a few dollars. Chemotherapy is basically diluted arsenic and other dangerous chemicals.
Note - The more life threatening a disease is the more it costs to fix it. Thus, we see that the medical system is nothing more than an extortion racket.
References - http://ahealedplanet.net...
Thank you for that last round (I mean, I'm trying to be polite, but my opponent was a bit insulting).
So here we go with responding to the last round.
R1) My opponent commits an ad hominem fallacy, essentially calling me an idiot instead of explaining why my argument is illogical. The irony is that the entire response is a logical fallacy, meaning my opponent literally threw logic in the "rubbish bin."
R2) Domestic animals do not tend to get rabies unless bitten by an animal in the wild. Rabies was in the evidence provided. I suggest my opponent read the evidence posted before attacking the evidence. So if we're proving points by omission, then my point is proven by my opponent's omission of an informed rebuttal.
R3) My opponent asserts that the government and universities rely on germ theory to make a living. However, in order for this to be true, we need to ignore most of those organizations. The statement is so untrue that attacking it with the proper amount of evidence would take more than the character space allows, but let me give you the overview.
The government primarily lives on taxes from income, sales, water, electricity, and other less common forms. These have nothing to do with germ theory. So what does the government lose by affirming germ theory? Not a whole lot.
Universities primarily live off people paying to go to school there. I'm now going to name a few degrees that have nothing to do with germ theory:
Those are all the degrees I could think of off the top of my head. As you can see, none of those actually require the acceptance of germ theory. So what do universities gain by accepting germ theory? Not much.
As far as trusting pharmacies, I didn't actually use pharmacies. But trusting people in the medical field is the only way to get verifiable evidence. To quote a great movie:
"I can see a t-bone by sticking my head up a bull's [butt], or I can just take the butcher's word for it."
The quote is only meant to prove that there are experts in a field who have done the studies so that we don't have to be an expert in everything. Being knowledgeable is good, but unless all of the voters would like to take a field trip to a hospital, inject someone with a disease and see if it causes any negative effects, we have to take the doctor's word for it.
Besides, the explanation makes sense, and my opponent hasn't logically shown why the explanation doesn't make sense. Therefore, the epxlanation stands.
R4) I'm not sure why my opponent brought up cancer again. I already explained why cancer is irrelevant.
Cancer is not caused by a pathogen. So germ theory is irrelevant here. The only thing that my opponent says that's relevant is that the more dangerous a disease is, the more costly it is to fix it.
However, he doesn't provide how much it costs to produce medicine for pathogen caused diseases as opposed to how much is charged. The entire argument is irrelevant based on that.
Note - I should warn my opponent against using 100 page long evidence without providing a reference for where someone will find the actual evidence being cited. Not everyone knows how to use the ctrl+f function, and that was a book written as one web page.
My opponent has not actually proven anything. Almost all of his responses to my evidence are logical fallacy, and the others just aren't grounded in anything. My case remains relatively untouched, but I have made an effort to provide very thorough explanations about how he is wrong.
Thank you for reading this debate.
No votes have been placed for this 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.