better to not treat sick people
Debate Rounds (5)
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
My rebuttal: You have no citation. I can not take you on your word that medication will slowly destroy our immune systems through evolution.
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
2.The rest of my opponents argument is a fallacy called appeal to nature
Time for my own points
1. Medication increases life expectancy. notice how life expectancy goes up as technology progresses.
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)."
(note "Christian Science healing is NOT medicine, it is prayer
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.
read my argument again...
"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.
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
"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.
Well my opponent still has not attacked my arguements from round 2. Remember that when you vote.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Jonbonbon 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:||0||6|
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.
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.