The Instigator
BasicLogic
Pro (for)
Winning
27 Points
The Contender
TheCreationist
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

Vaccines are beneficial

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 5 votes the winner is...
BasicLogic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/4/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 759 times Debate No: 54019
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (5)

 

BasicLogic

Pro

Con shall be arguing vaccines harm more than help. (Amount of people sick/injured/killed)

Rules: No linking to whale.to, naturalnews, blogs, un-scientific studies, anecdotal evidence, or online polls. If you do link to these, there is a 6-million point deduction.
Also, if Con says "Big pharma" or anything like that (All your evidence is fake because Big Pharma Changed the results!) he shall lose the debate.

Graphs and charts are welcome

Oh and Vaccines do not cause autism. You may argue this, but you will lose. Just becuase vaccines and autism rises does not mean there is a link.

Con may state his argument in round one
And con? Good luck
TheCreationist

Con

HARM ANIMALS!
Debate Round No. 1
BasicLogic

Pro

Um, how exactly do they harm animals? I believe they are grown on eggs (correct me if i am wrong) but that is a drop in an ocean. Please give evidence next time. Even if they do harm animals a lot, the human lives saved are well worth it.
TheCreationist

Con

no it makes 100 million animals a year have to be tested on

https://www.dosomething.org...

Debate Round No. 2
BasicLogic

Pro

Ahem. Your source does not show the amount of animals tested on for vaccines. It shows ALL things that are required testing. I can also say jeeps are dangerous because 10 thousand people die in them a year, then send a link to the deaths of everyone in a car accident. Please site the right source next time. Also, I would take the life of a human over one of a rat. Vaccines have saved millions of lives.
TheCreationist

Con

"1. Over 100 million animals are burned, crippled, poisoned and abused in U.S. labs every year." from my source

i have shown one way that vaccines are beneficial, and you have the bop. thus, i have proven that vaccienes are not beneficial TO ANIAMALS. thus, i win because i have shown one way that vaccines are not beneficial, meaning that they can not be truly beneficial
Debate Round No. 3
BasicLogic

Pro

Sigh, you again never showed how many animals are used for testing vaccines. For all we know, the animals could be tested on how well justin beibers songs are. I did't say why vaccines are good since I was refuting your dumb comments. Now I will argue.
A. Vaccines have saved many lives. They prevent several diseases with a VERY low chance of failure
B. Many terrible illnesses have been eradicated thanks to vaccines. When was the last time you saw polio?
C. Vaccines have very small chances of something happening badly. The chance of you getting a severe reaction to a vaccine is tiny compared to the actual virus
D. VACCINES DO NOT CAUSE AUTISM, IT HAS BEEN DISPROVEN SO MANY TIMES
E Even if animals are used to test vaccines, the human lives saved are well worth it.
TheCreationist

Con

http://www.animaltestingfacts.zoomshare.com...

check out that link it will show you all about animal testing. even though you show benefits, it is not ENTIRELY, UNDENIABLEY beneficial because it is anything but beneficial to animals
Debate Round No. 4
BasicLogic

Pro

We are arguing for the WHOLE benefit. The net benefit. Your sources again do not show how many animals are used to test vaccines. Also, your source also says that he is fine with animal experiments as long as it medicine. I would trade the life of a rat for one of a human
TheCreationist

Con

the bop says you have to prove "vaccines are beneficial" so you have to PROVE THAT THEY ARE BENEFICIAL TO EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE. i have shown it is not. my first source showed 100 million animals were tested per year. you didn't see that. 100 million animals are tested per year to save a few lives, so its not a rat for a human
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by BasicLogic 3 years ago
BasicLogic
You still never showed how many rats are used for testing vaccines. I also said total benefit. I win
Posted by BasicLogic 3 years ago
BasicLogic
Con, next round, argue that they harm humanity more than they help.
Posted by BasicLogic 3 years ago
BasicLogic
Good point, changing that
Posted by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Actionsspeak
Pro, you never clarified that this debate with beneficial to humans or that Con has to argue for Anthropocentrism.
Posted by jacobie1121 3 years ago
jacobie1121
yep
Posted by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Actionsspeak
Change the title from at to are.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by SNP1 3 years ago
SNP1
BasicLogicTheCreationistTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Cons conduct was horrible at best (Conduct Pro). Con used minimal punctuation and cap locked his first argument (Spelling and grammar Pro). Con did not argue with evidence, he simply made a claim and posted a link (arguments Pro). Though Pro did not offer any sources and Con did, the sources given by Con had an obvious bias. It is better to use no sources than to use biased ones (sources Pro). Who is the obvious winner? Pro.
Vote Placed by JMCika 3 years ago
JMCika
BasicLogicTheCreationistTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con is either a troll or an idiot
Vote Placed by Comrade_Silly_Otter 3 years ago
Comrade_Silly_Otter
BasicLogicTheCreationistTied
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:52 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was much neater in his argument, however Con was the only one to even give a source. Pro wins for better spelling and Grammar for capitalization.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
BasicLogicTheCreationistTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: what was con thinking?
Vote Placed by OliveJuice 3 years ago
OliveJuice
BasicLogicTheCreationistTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: