Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

RFD: Germ Theory (Akh v. Whitelfame)

YYW
Posts: 36,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2016 3:28:59 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
I. Resolution

http://www.debate.org...

"Germ theory is a fraud."

Disclaimer:

I lol'd when I read this resolution. It's really funny.

II. Burdens

PRO is making a positive claim, and therefore PRO bears the sole BOP. Positive claims are claims that are falsifiable; one that is or is not the case, and not simply a matter of opinion. To do otherwise would be to prejudice CON, as much as to entertain intellectual absurdity.

For PRO to win, he must identify what germ theory is, and prove that it is false. CON does not need to prove that germ theory is not false to win; he may win if PRO fails to uphold its burden either by way of PRO's failure to make a case, or by CON's prevention of PRO's meeting its burden.

III. Arguments

a. PRO

PRO opens without an argument in any coherent form; just nonsensical ramblings about modern dietary patterns and leaky gut syndrome, then diseases, chemicals and health problems. This is absurdity, especially in light of PRO's subsequent concession, "that gut bacteria can enter the blood stream and cause disease." PRO's case is *literally* dead in the water. I lol'd again. PRO has no sources. lol.

b. CON

CON correctly explains that the burden is solely on PRO, which is good. Con thereafter correctly identifies CON's explicit concession, "that gut bacteria can enter the blood stream and cause disease." I appreciate that he recognized this, because at this point I could stop reading the debate, because, again, as CON correctly notes, "Saying that bacterial agents are causal for any disease proves germ theory true, so the debate's already over." Just as CON continued to dance on PRO's grave, so too shall I... for the sake of my own amusement.

CON proceeds to talk about pathogens and disease, and how they work and stuff. (errrmrrrrgrrrrddddd germ theory is legit, yo!) And PRO has a whole load of sources to back this up.

IV. Analysis

PRO at once failed to present any evidence that germ theory is a fraud, while conceding that germ theory is not a fraud. PRO failed to rebut all arguments and rebuttals offered by CON. PRO in subsequent rounds relied on 1 source, and a video, and then a whole bunch of irrelevant nonsense later on. This was comical. CON presented lots of evidence that germ theory is not fraudulent, goes above and beyond his burden, has sources and consistently rebutted everything PRO said. I could get into more details, but there really is no point.

V. Outcome

PRO obviously failed to meet his burden, and any incidental progress he may have made in the way of doing that was overwhelmed by CON's use of evidence that germ theory was not fraudulent. Beyond that, PRO conceded the debate in the first round.

VI. Comments

https://rumsasubmissions.files.wordpress.com...
Tsar of DDO
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2016 1:38:19 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
That might be the most one-sided debate I ever read, Pro's argument was so bad that Con could have just passed every round and still won.

I didn't just want to vote Con, it made me wish there was a "Punch Pro in the nose" button :)
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2016 10:17:01 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Oh, goodness, YYW.

That's a funny debate, and an hilarious critique. Full marks to Whitelfame for carefully detailing an empirical best-practice approach to distinguishing correlation from causation, despite not really having to. :)

I didn't read the whole debate but a simple rebuttal of Con's contention can be found in experiments that induce symptoms by introducing microorganisms, study the progress, then cure the symptoms again.

A famous recent example was Marshall's and Warren's Nobel Prize-winning result in 1985 that peptic ulcers were a result of bacterial infection and not simply diet, stress and stomach acid -- demonstrated by taking a symptom-free subject (Marshall), and innoculating him with Helicobacter pylori, recording severe early ulcer symptoms and bacterial proliferation, then curing it with antibiotics -- a result that incidentally paved the way to discovering a common cause of stomach cancer. [http://www.nobelprize.org... https://en.wikipedia.org...]

Pro is an infrequent poster to this forum. If he is reading, I would warmly invite him to ask more questions about science, and make fewer half-researched assertions.
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 3:43:03 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/1/2016 10:17:01 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Oh, goodness, YYW.

That's a funny debate, and an hilarious critique. Full marks to Whitelfame for carefully detailing an empirical best-practice approach to distinguishing correlation from causation, despite not really having to. :)

I didn't read the whole debate but a simple rebuttal of Con's contention can be found in experiments that induce symptoms by introducing microorganisms, study the progress, then cure the symptoms again.

A famous recent example was Marshall's and Warren's Nobel Prize-winning result in 1985 that peptic ulcers were a result of bacterial infection and not simply diet, stress and stomach acid -- demonstrated by taking a symptom-free subject (Marshall), and innoculating him with Helicobacter pylori, recording severe early ulcer symptoms and bacterial proliferation, then curing it with antibiotics -- a result that incidentally paved the way to discovering a common cause of stomach cancer. [http://www.nobelprize.org... https://en.wikipedia.org...]

Pro is an infrequent poster to this forum. If he is reading, I would warmly invite him to ask more questions about science, and make fewer half-researched assertions.

Reply - If one gets stomach ulcers, its primary cause would be a bad diet. The resulting bad bacteria are there to remedy the problem. Marshall and Warren should have both got a solid whack on the back of their numbskull heads with a solid piece of 2x4 . Not a Nobel Prize. Note - My library of medical books would out number yours by 10 to 1.

Get informed numbskull - http://www.yourhealthbase.com...
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 6:32:10 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 3:43:03 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 1/1/2016 10:17:01 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Oh, goodness, YYW.

That's a funny debate, and an hilarious critique. Full marks to Whitelfame for carefully detailing an empirical best-practice approach to distinguishing correlation from causation, despite not really having to. :)

I didn't read the whole debate but a simple rebuttal of Con's contention can be found in experiments that induce symptoms by introducing microorganisms, study the progress, then cure the symptoms again.

A famous recent example was Marshall's and Warren's Nobel Prize-winning result in 1985 that peptic ulcers were a result of bacterial infection and not simply diet, stress and stomach acid -- demonstrated by taking a symptom-free subject (Marshall), and innoculating him with Helicobacter pylori, recording severe early ulcer symptoms and bacterial proliferation, then curing it with antibiotics -- a result that incidentally paved the way to discovering a common cause of stomach cancer. [http://www.nobelprize.org... https://en.wikipedia.org...]

Pro is an infrequent poster to this forum. If he is reading, I would warmly invite him to ask more questions about science, and make fewer half-researched assertions.

Reply - If one gets stomach ulcers, its primary cause would be a bad diet. The resulting bad bacteria are there to remedy the problem.

I believe that argument was refuted in your debate, Akh, and it was also refuted in the research itself. But I've seen you repeat it endlessly here before, and expect you'll do so again.

So try this question: if you were wrong, how would you know it?
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 2:07:43 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 6:32:10 AM, RuvDraba wrote:

I believe that argument was refuted in your debate, Akh, and it was also refuted in the research itself. But I've seen you repeat it endlessly here before, and expect you'll do so again.

So try this question: if you were wrong, how would you know it?

Reply - This website is just a microcosm of the greater world. In other words - nearly everything that happens is either corrupted, false or totally ridiculous. Why don't you just respond to the reference and forget about any previous conclusions. Whiteflame is just another conservative nincompoop. His opinion is worth nothing as far as I am concerned. I easily defeated him in the debate - scientifically, philosophically and rhetorically. He is not in my league of super genius.

http://www.yourhealthbase.com...

Try reading - Awakening Our Self Healing Body by Arthur M. Baker M. A.

Note - I am right because I follow my own advice and never get sick as a result. lol

Note - Don't try to use primitive psychology techniques on me. I am a master of psychology as well.

"if you were wrong, how would you know it?" lol - how pathetic! lol - You primitives make me laugh!
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 5:05:16 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 2:07:43 PM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 1/19/2016 6:32:10 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
I believe that argument was refuted in your debate, Akh, and it was also refuted in the research itself. But I've seen you repeat it endlessly here before, and expect you'll do so again.
So try this question: if you were wrong, how would you know it?
"if you were wrong, how would you know it?" lol - how pathetic! lol - You primitives make me laugh!

I understand you to be telling me, Akh, that if you were wrong, you wouldn't know how to recognise that fact.

So if you were doing yourself harm by your your beliefs, if you were lying to yourself, and putting yourself at risk, you have no way of telling?

Please note that I am not saying you are harming yourself. I'm saying that you have admitted to behaving recklessly, without rigour or critical thought; upholding the idealistic belief that you are right because you presently feel healthy, and can find books that agree with you, and because you lack the will and discipline to test whether you are wrong.

That concerns me because, if those beliefs are doing you harm, you would be so full of confirmation bias that you might be unable to recognise it.

While you are welcome to reply, and while I expect you to dismiss what I am saying because it presently costs you nothing to do so, I hope you will remember these words anyway, because they may help you later, at a time when you need them.

So the question I'd like you to remember again: if you were wrong, how would you know it?
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 2:23:05 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 5:05:16 PM, RuvDraba wrote:


I understand you to be telling me, Akh, that if you were wrong, you wouldn't know how to recognise that fact.

Reply - I am right. It is up to you to recognize any error.

So if you were doing yourself harm by your your beliefs, if you were lying to yourself, and putting yourself at risk, you have no way of telling?

Reply - My beliefs are making me healthy. Its your beliefs that have me concerned. How often do you suffer from colds, flu, headaches etc?

Please note that I am not saying you are harming yourself. I'm saying that you have admitted to behaving recklessly, without rigour or critical thought; upholding the idealistic belief that you are right because you presently feel healthy, and can find books that agree with you, and because you lack the will and discipline to test whether you are wrong.

Reply - I have already tested my theory thousands of times. My whole life has been a testing ground. It is now time to bathe in the sunshine of my own good health and knowledge.

That concerns me because, if those beliefs are doing you harm, you would be so full of confirmation bias that you might be unable to recognise it.

Reply - It is only yourself that is in danger. Learn to recognize bad health from good health and what causes it.

While you are welcome to reply, and while I expect you to dismiss what I am saying because it presently costs you nothing to do so, I hope you will remember these words anyway, because they may help you later, at a time when you need them.

So the question I'd like you to remember again: if you were wrong, how would you know it?

Reply - Thanks for the illogical question again. But, my grand inquisitor; it is the question that is sick, not the patient. lol
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 5:20:22 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 2:23:05 PM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 1/19/2016 5:05:16 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
I understand you to be telling me, Akh, that if you were wrong, you wouldn't know how to recognise that fact.

Reply - I am right. It is up to you to recognize any error.
How do you recognise error in your thought?
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 11:09:05 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 5:20:22 PM, RuvDraba wrote:


Reply - I am right. It is up to you to recognize any error.

How do you recognise error in your thought?

Reply - By recognizing that is a waste of time communicating with yourself. That's how! lol