The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
bananaedmonkey
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

better to not treat sick people

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
bananaedmonkey
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/6/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 811 times Debate No: 80557
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (48)
Votes (1)

 

vi_spex

Pro

the limitation of intentionally treating diseases is that the outcome is less healthy beings by derailing evolution.. if we took care of all diseases with medication, eventually kids immun systems would be 1 with machine for them to be healty
bananaedmonkey

Con

My opponent argues that if we used medication to treat all illnesses then our immune systems would become weaker and weaker, until finally, we would be one with machine.

My rebuttal: You have no citation. I can not take you on your word that medication will slowly destroy our immune systems through evolution.
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

the shape of my body changes according to the environment

if we treat people that get sick, we interfere with nature, it is natural to die from a deadly disease, so that person not dying and getting kids spred genes that are not supposed to exist in nature, and now these kids need treatment for eksample.. might not be like that maybe on a larger scale.. but its there, because nature was interfered with
bananaedmonkey

Con

1."the shape of my body changes according to the environment"
Citation please

2.The rest of my opponents argument is a fallacy called appeal to nature
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

Time for my own points

1. Medication increases life expectancy. notice how life expectancy goes up as technology progresses.
http://ourworldindata.org...
less death is good.

2.A study of 2 colleges. One thought modern medicine was good. The other was religious, and was taught "Christian science healing"

"William F. Simpson, an assistant professor of mathematics and computer science at Emporia State University conducted an exploratory study into the effectiveness of Christian Science healing. He compared alumni records from a Christian Science school (Principia College in Elsah, IL) with those from the secular University of Kansas in Lawrence, KS. One would expect that if Christian Science healing is as effective as conventional medicine, then the graduates of Principia College would live longer than those from Kansas. This is because the Church forbids the use of alcohol and tobacco. But the results were in the opposite direction. The death rates among Principia graduates from 1934 to 1948 were significantly higher than those of the University of Kansas graduates. (26.2 vs. 20.9% for men; 11.3 vs. 9.9% for women)."
http://www.religioustolerance.org...

(note "Christian Science healing is NOT medicine, it is prayer
http://christianscience.com...)

what is interesting is that despite the fact that Principia College taught their students not to drink or do drugs, they STILL had a higher death rate then the College that practiced medicine. This helps prove that Medication saves lives, a reason we should use it instead of letting people DIE.
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

read my argument again...


bananaedmonkey

Con

"read my argument again."

ok, i will.

"the shape of my body changes according to the environment"

still no citation


"if we treat people that get sick, we interfere with nature"

you are arguing that it is bad to interfere with nature, that is appeal to nature



"it is natural to die from a deadly disease, so that person not dying and getting kids spread genes that are not supposed to exist in nature,"

You are saying the kids genes are unnatural and thus bad. Appeal to nature.



"now these kids need treatment for eksample.. might not be like that maybe on a larger scale.. but its there, because nature was interfered with"

You are arguing that something bad happened because quote, "nature has been interfered with." That is still appeal to nature, which is still a fallacy.



As for my points.... Well you didn't attack them so i wont bother defending them. But they still are there, and they still go unchallenged.
Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

no i am saying altering nature un naturally will result in un natural events

you dont actually understand the argument..

it is extremtly simple to understand.. if treating sick people causes genes that are not suppose to exist to spread then treating people is the wrong thing
bananaedmonkey

Con

"i am saying altering nature un naturally will result in un natural events"

Ok then your point being....



"it is extremtly simple to understand.. if treating sick people causes genes that are not suppose to exist to spread then treating people is the wrong thing"


So you are saying that since those people live through whatever disease they braved then they spread something that is not supposed to exist. Therefore it is then wrong. Why? What is wrong with genes that could not exist without human intervention? Plastics could not exist without human intervention and they are one of the most helpful things we have invented.


Pro still has not attacked my arguements from round 2.
Debate Round No. 4
bananaedmonkey

Con

".."

...




Well my opponent still has not attacked my arguements from round 2. Remember that when you vote.
VOTE CON!!
Debate Round No. 5
48 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by KingofEverything 1 year ago
KingofEverything
Vi_spex. PM me please.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
get to the point then, make me cry
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
you type alot, i know that
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
Your lack of English doesn't allow me to understand you. Besides, you're not open to someone else's opinion, which means I can never have a productive discussion with you.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
you lack of comprehension gets me nowhere
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
Hey, Vi_Spex, we really need to have a talk about the way you say things. Of course, you'd have to unblock me, but i figured we all got you to stop talking in mathematical expressions, so maybe we can teach you to elaborate.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
my argument is the explanation of the thing i am arguing for
Posted by bananaedmonkey 1 year ago
bananaedmonkey
well the at his point it is your job to explain it. EXPLAIN your agrument.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
this is where it shows clearly that you didnt read my argument at all
Posted by bananaedmonkey 1 year ago
bananaedmonkey
i had an round 2 argrument that you happly ignored.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
vi_spexbananaedmonkeyTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - con wins conduct, because pro blatantly disrespected con when he didn't even respond to or consider con's argument. He just sort of assumed intellectually superiority. Arguments - con's entire case was dropped, and pro didn't have any support to his arguments. Con showed where pro needed a source, committed a logical fallacy, and explains why pro's arguments actually isn't supported even by reason. Therefore, con loses the arguments. Sources - con used sources, and pro simply refused to use sources at all, even after being asked to use them twice.