The Instigator
TheSpaceCadet
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
InVinoVeritas
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points

Illegilise all "medicines" not acreditied by scientific results. i.e. herbal, homoeopathy.

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 1 vote the winner is...
InVinoVeritas
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/16/2011 Category: Science
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 782 times Debate No: 19908
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

TheSpaceCadet

Con

I hope that whoever accepts this debate will be able to deliver a good argument for the Illegalisation of non-scientifically accredited medicines. I would like to firstly give a better definition of what I mean by non-scientifically accredited.
I mean any medicine or product which claims to be beneficial to your health, or wellbeing which has not been run through double blind tests or at least stringent single blind tests.
The first round is for definition, acceptance and request for clarification only.
Thank you.
InVinoVeritas

Pro

I accept. I am eager to read Con's argument.
Debate Round No. 1
TheSpaceCadet

Con

TheSpaceCadet forfeited this round.
InVinoVeritas

Pro

The opponent forfeits... Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
TheSpaceCadet

Con

TheSpaceCadet forfeited this round.
InVinoVeritas

Pro

...Why did he make this 5 rounds? -.-
Debate Round No. 3
TheSpaceCadet

Con

TheSpaceCadet forfeited this round.
InVinoVeritas

Pro

One more to go... Vote pro.

And here's a video relating to this topic for your entertainment:
Debate Round No. 4
TheSpaceCadet

Con

TheSpaceCadet forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by InVinoVeritas 5 years ago
InVinoVeritas
Don't be surprised. I'm a professional. ;)
Posted by Wnope 5 years ago
Wnope
I'm surprised this counts as an actual debate. Forfeited rounds and a youtube video. Not exactly impressive.
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
So, did you argue or did Mr. Randi argue for you, InVinoVeritas?
Posted by InVinoVeritas 5 years ago
InVinoVeritas
"Didn't argue," man-is-good? Didn't you see my first video? Definitely supported my case.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
TheSpaceCadetInVinoVeritasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Well....Con didn't do anything else other than participating in the first round. But then again, Pro didn't argue, present sources, either, but I suppose a gift of a point for conduct would suffice....