Vaginal steaming has significant and scientifically verified health benefits relevant to the USA
Debate Rounds (4)
Vaginal steaming is a practice, recently popularized by one Gwyneth Paltrow, that involves a female sitting over steaming water (possibly infused with herbs) and letting the water enter their vagina.
I argue that vaginal steaming has no significant, scientifically verified health benefits relevant to most females in the USA.
1: Failing to fulfill any of these rules is grounds for a 7-point forfeiture.
2: No debater may post more than 10,000 characters per round
3: Each debater has no more than 72 hours per round to post their argument(s) and rebuttal(s)
4: Any citations or sources must be used within the character limit of the debate
5: No plagiarism
6: No trolling, semantics, or other meaningless debates
7: No kritiks of the topic; substantive debate please
BURDEN OF PROOF
Pro has the Burden of Proof (BOP) to prove the resolution true, while Con merely has the BOP to prove that the resolution is not true.
Round 1: Con may posts rule(s). Pro may post new argument(s).
Round 2: Con may post new argument(s) and may rebut Pro. Pro may post new argument(s) and may rebut Con.
Round 3: Con may post new argument(s) and may rebut Pro. Pro may post new argument(s) and may rebut Con.
Round 4: Con may NOT post new argument(s) and may rebut Pro. Pro MUST concede the round.
WARNING: TURN BACK NOW DAMN IT!
Vaginal steaming can strenthin the vag and prevent ageing. Here is a picture of a vag that has never been steamed
I said to turn back. Here's what a good steamed vag looks like
need I say more?
Mental scarring, anyone?
So I Google image searched the images Pro posted.
The first appears to show up for "blue waffle" . This is a fictional disease, which is actually just cases of acute vaginitis . There is nothing to link this picture to a failure to vaginally steam.
The second appears to show up for "great pu$$y lips from below" . In other words, it's the same kind of thing somebody would search for when horny. There is nothing to link this picture to vaginally steaming.
Basically, neither of these images are related to vaginally steaming. They're just images from around the Internet. You can't accept them as evidence of, well, anything.
Furthermore, this evidence is not:
(1) verified -- no peer review has been done of these pictures
(2) significant -- we don't know what the impact is here
(3) scientific -- this evidence is 2 pictures, basically anecdotal evidence, not empirical studies
STEAM FOR A BLUE WAFFLE
In contrast, numerous doctors have pointed out that vaginal steaming can *cause* vaginal infection (and thus lead to the blue waffle picture seen above), can cause steam burns, and can spread STDs (which can lead to the blue waffle picture seen above) . Basically, vaginally steaming can cause the above picture, and not the lower.
Vaginal steaming has also been associated with lacerations of the vagina, leading to bleeding , which certainly isn't healthy.
Jedi4 forfeited this round.
Pro forfeited round 2.
You believe everything google says. Steaming helps look up steamed vag and see the goodness. It also perks up your boobs
only the magic of steaming vagainia can get us that perfection
See my Round 3 rebuttal for why Pro's picture is irrelevant. It's anecdotal.
I remind Pro that they MUST pass in Round 4. If Pro does otherwise, vote Con.
Arguments & Sources: Pro has failed to present any scientific evidence that vaginal steaming is effective. Con has presented evidence that the opposite is true. You must vote Con, on both sources and arguments.
Grammar: Pro has had, by far, the worse grammar, with sentences without periods and uncapitalized starting words. Vote Con.
Conduct: You may also vote Con on conduct, given that Pro has not taken the debate seriously and has instead posted pictures of vaginas.
Jedi4 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Mikal 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:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Ehh wtf. No arguments from pro
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.