The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
3 Points

All people with TB should be treated with antibiotics

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/10/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,365 times Debate No: 54413
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




1st round acceptance. Everything else seems self explanatory.


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I am sure this will be interesting.

Back ground on Tuberculosis.

Tuberculosis is a disease that is caused by the bacteria M. tuberculosis, which is an acid-fast bacillus that affects the lungs and may involve other body systems. Tuberculosis is diagnosed by a positive tuberculin skin test (A.K.A. PPD test), sputum cultures, immunoassays and chest x-rays. Please not that a positive PPD alone is not enough to diagnosis TB. TB is a contagious disease however it is not as contagious as what it was once thought to be. Most commonly to become infected you need repeat close exposure to someone already infected. In a study published by the University of Chicago showed that when a infant was diagnosed with TB there were a total of 82 people were infected and only 15% of those showed a positive PPD[1],[2].

Treatment of Tuberculosis.

The treatment of TB is antibiotic therapy. These antibiotics include a combination of the following drugs isoniazid, rifampin, pyrazinamide, ethambutol, rifapentine, and streptomycin. These drugs must be taken for at least six months in order to rid the body of the infection. These medications have serious side effects including hepatic failure, toxic psychosis, neuropathy, Steven Johnson’s syndrome, Clostridium difficile, Disseminated intravascular coagulation, nephrotoxicity, porphyria, anemia, blindness, pulmonary infiltrates, pancreatitis, angioedema, superinfections, hearing loss and obviously your common nausea vomiting and diarrhea[3],[4].

Who should not be treated?

First I am going to argue that people in low socioeconomic classes and substance abusers should not be treated. I know this sounds heartless, but it is for the greater good. As I mentioned above these medications need to be taken for 6 months. If people do not follow the strict drug regimented due to non-compliance they will not get over the infection completely. People in lower socioeconomic classes may not be compliant due to the plain cost of the pills. This non complacence is what leads to drug resistance.

People who cannot handle the nephrotoxicity or heptictoxicicty of the medications should not be treated. This creates the same situation as above. The person starts the medication and is no longer able to finish it which contributes to creating a drug resistant strain.

Closing remarks

If people do not finish the drug regiment the potential for a strain of TB that is completely immune to all treatment can arise. If this happens the best we can do is manage the symptoms rather than treat the infection. This will lead to more deaths than need be.

[1] Pathophysiology: The Biological Basis for Disease in Adults and Children 6th ed. by Kathryn L. McCance (BOOK).

[3] Pathophysiology: The Biological Basis for Disease in Adults and Children 6th ed. by Kathryn L. McCance (BOOK).

[4] Epocrates (Iphone app)



Let's start off by looking at some facts.

One-third of the world's population is infected with TB, the vast majority of these outside the U.S. Still, about 10,000 cases a year happen in the U.S., and the amount is declining.[1] The number of cases abroad, however, is growing by 9.2 million each year, and each presents as a possible source of spread in the U.S.[2]

An untreated infection can lead to a person infecting 10-15 new people every year, as it is highly contagious.[2]

It's a leading infectious killer among those with HIV/AIDS, which continues to be a major threat to the U.S., infecting over 1.1 million people.[2][3] This isn't unique to HIV, since anyone with a depressed immune system is at higher risk.[4]

The majority of people can be cured of their tuberculosis with basic antibiotic treatment. This is mainly because doctors do actually prepare for antibiotic resistance, mainly by treating with 4 antibiotics at once " isoniazid, rifampin, ethambutol, and pyrazinamide. These were discovered 50 or more years ago in each case, and are both widely available and effective in the vast majority of instances.[6]

Now, onto his points. I accept all of his points under background, as these are the realities behind TB. However, his evaluation of treatments is somewhat concerning, mainly because he's conflating a number of antibiotics, and leaving a large number out. Here's the full list (note that these are not all individual antibiotics): thioamides, cycloserine, aminoglycosides, PAS (4-aminosalicylic acid), cyclic peptides, and fluoroquinolones.[6] That huge list of side effects is accurate only if you look at certain subsets of these. I'll explore the specifics of these drugs' side effects more as I get into some rebuttal of his case proper, but any of these have their side effects listed on,, and several are explained on Wikipedia. They are not nearly so deleterious as Con makes out.

So let's look at the case. Note that, while he backs up his background analyses with links, he doesn't have any sources for his actual argument. And that's seriously important, mainly because I have no clue how he would plan to implement this. What suffices as low enough socioeconomic class in order to state that someone should be denied antibiotic treatment? Does someone on Medicaid not count as having the means to afford this treatment? How about anyone with subsidized health care? How would we determine if someone is a substance abuser, what substances must a person be abusing in order to be denied treatment, and how badly must that person be abusing said substances? How much nephrotoxicity and hepatotoxicity (not heptictoxicity, couldn't find that) must a person have in order to deny them access to treatment? Why can't the person make that decision themselves instead of the doctor? How will this toxicity be determined and assessed ahead of treatment? Beyond that, I don't know how he means to implement this. Would doctors now be required to deny patients access to these antibiotics, even if they ask? Should they have the ability to arbitrarily decide who gets antibiotics and who doesn't? If they decide to give everyone antibiotics, could they be sued by some government agency or group of doctors?

Con's case is extremely vague. I don't know the answers to any of these questions, and I won't assume them. I invite Con to clarify his case in the next round by answering these questions.

However, I still have responses to the case as given.

1) By denying treatment and effectively allowing these people to die, doctors would be spurning their duties. Con would like to assume that doctors should focus on the larger picture, but their duty is to their patients. Given his analysis, a patient entering the emergency room would be required to show proof of income before receiving antibiotic therapy. They would have their background checked for drug abuse, and probably have to have their bodies checked for signs of said abuse before treatment. Many of these people may be on the verge of death, and will be told that their treatment endangers others, so they can't get it.

2) From a basic logical perspective, doctors have incentive to prescribe. Patients who die or suffer as a result of a doctor's decision not to prescribe are incredibly likely to sue, and no matter what policy the government has in place, this is going to lead to a lot of substantial losses on the part of doctors. Con's putting them in a very bad place. He's either forcing them to reduce their overall prescriptions, denying access for many patients, and thereby inviting hundreds or even thousands of lawsuits, or he's encouraging them to ignore the policy, which means that it becomes completely ineffective and Con loses all solvency.

3) Con completely disregards the importance of transmission. The more people in the country who have TB, the more people will have TB as a result of transmission. These patients need to be treated in order to prevent its spread, that's part of the reason that the spread of TB has gone down so effectively. Even if you don't care about the patients themselves, these cases can easily spread the disease to others (10-15 people a year) while they live, and they get a tremendous number of opportunities to spread it to patients who are immunocompromised, thus threatening more lives severely.

4) This case is blatantly classist. Suddenly, only those that can afford to pay for the treatments (not necessarily even all those covered by insurance, though Con may clarify that that's the case) deserve to survive and flourish. Everyone else can suffer.

5) Apparently, alcoholics and smokers, who have legal access to the drugs they use, will be told they are now too much of a risk to receive adequate treatment for a deadly disease. Someone who receives regular injections as treatments for any number of diseases may be mistaken as a junky. The system would deny access for many who have no such history, and Con provides no basis for denying to this group whatsoever.

6) The vast majority of resistance is engendered abroad, and not in the U.S.[7] This isn't just due to the amount of cases we have (though that is a factor), but also a result of improved medical treatment and monitoring. We have an extensive system for keeping track of patients and ensuring that they are using their medication in the short and long term.

7) As for nephrotoxicity and hepatotoxicity, the sheer number of drugs I cited shows that there are a lot of options. Just looking through the side effects of each, I found several effective treatments that don't have one or the other:

No recorded nephrotoxicity: rifampin, ethambutol, thioamides, cycloserine, aminoglycosides, and lassomycin (cyclic peptide)
No recorded hepatotoxicity: aminoglycosides (includes streptomycin), PAS, lassomycin, and fluoroquinolones

That's not to mention that many of the drugs that do have these toxic effects can be titrated to a specific dosage in order to ensure that the toxicity is minimized. But more importantly, recognize that many of these patients are in dire straits. They don't have a choice here, as TB is practically assured to kill them without treatment. It's better to suffer the uncertainty of toxic outcomes than it is to deal with the certainty of pervasive infection robbing them of their ability to breathe.

So I propose a counterplan. This plan has three planks, which are explained below:

1) Improve access to antibiotics by making treatment more affordable. A nationwide program instituted by the CDC and NIH could ensure that we completely eliminate TB in this country by making these antibiotics available for cheap or even free to patients.

2) Improve the monitoring program in the U.S. The best way to do this is to uses directly observed therapy (DOT) in order to ensure that patients are taking the recommended dosage every weekday. These have been shown to be very effective.[8] Dosages can be modified to ensure more rapid completion of treatment or to reduce the number of times a patient has to take their antibiotics. Patient education can be improved. In the case of the poor, I would suggest improving access by providing free bus tickets and even food vouchers for those infected with TB that agree to participate.[8] This would include extensive monitoring over the first week or so, ensuring that patients who are susceptible to nephrotoxicity and hepatotoxicity are protected from possible harms and shifted to other antibiotics in the instance that they do present with symptoms.

3) Focus on improving the system of treatment. New detection methods are coming to the fore that are capable of rapid early diagnosis and even detecting drug resistance. This particular device, which can produce results in 2 hours, is called Xpert MTB/RIF.[9] We should endeavor to advance this technology, funding research with its parent company Cepheid to reduce its cost and improve its design. This would mean that fewer antibiotics would have to be used, and the duration of their usage could also be reduced.

These would all far more effectively solve the problem without allowing patients to die or increasing the spread of this disease. It allows doctors to do their job without discriminating, as they should.

With that, I hand the debate back to my opponent.

Debate Round No. 2


I must say your argument looks impressive but let’s break it down and look at it individually.

First issue I would like to bring up is when you stated that “An untreated infection can lead to a person infecting 10-15 new people every year, as it is highly contagious.” This quote came from CNN. CNN is not a reliable source for medical knowledge but clear at the bottom it said these facts came from the World Health Organization (WHO). I went to the WHO website to see what I can find and I could not find this fact. However in the book Medical Surgical Nursing: Patient-Centered Collaborative Care 7th edition by Ignatavicious and Workman states that it takes repeated close exposure for another person to contract TB[1]. How many people (outside of healthcare workers) are in repeat close exposure to a person with TB in the United States?

Second issue is the following quote “Here's the full list (note that these are not all individual antibiotics): thioamides, cycloserine, aminoglycosides, PAS (4-aminosalicylic acid), cyclic peptides, and fluoroquinolones.” Most of these are not antibiotics rater than classes of antibiotics and some are not even antibiotics. Thiomides is a class of drugs that medications like methimazole (Tapazole). Thiomides are not antibiotics; rather they affect thyroid hormones by preventing the formation of T3 and T4 in the thyroid cells[2]. TB is a bacteria that normaly effects the lungs not they thyroid. Aminoglycosides are antibiotics that prohibit protein synthesis in susceptible strains of bacteria and streptomycin (which I mentioned in my first argument) belongs in this class[3]. Cycloserine (Seromycin) is also an Aminoglycoside. Cyclic peptides are not antibiotics rather than parts of proteins and I could not find any reference of those in the source you cited[4]. Fluroquinolones are class of antibiotics used for UTIs[5]. I could not find anything related to PAS (4-aminosalicylic acid) in the book Focus on Nursing Pharmacology by Amy Karch. I Googled it and found out that this is a very old expensive drug and has been replaced with rifampin (mentioned above in my first argument) because PAS is extremely toxic and the benefit is limited[6] . I feel that you should revisit the claim that I miss evaluated the treatment.

Third issue he brings up Medicaid and I assume he is trying to ask what I mean by someone who can’t afford the medication. When I said people who can’t afford the medication I meant people who cannot afford medication weather that means uninsured or just not having the financial resources.

The fourth issue is how to define a substance abuser. I did not realize this needed expansion and I figured that the DSM-IV-TR diagnostic criteria to define a drug abuser. The DSM-V diagnostic criteria are not available on the internet and I don’t know about you but I do not wish to pay in order to see it for this debate. The link here will show you the criteria for substance dependence:

Fifth issue brought up is the degree to which a person must have renal or hepatic failure in order to deny treatment. I figured this was obvious. If the person is so bad where the treatment would kill them prior to ridding them of the bacteria, they should not be treated. The reason the doctor should make that decision is the average person is not qualified to determine how bad there renal failure or hepatic failure is. For example if a doctor come up to you and says your BUN is 200mg/dL, your creatinine is 20 mg/dL and your urine output is 0.3ml/hr can you tell what stage renal failure you are in? How bad is your renal failure? Are those numbers good? Are you kidneys healthy enough to handle the antibiotics?

Moving on to his rebuttals.

1) Doctors also have a duty to protect the community and general population. It is the doctors who have create this situation with so many MDROs by overprescribing antibiotics, using too small of a dose , or just using the wrong antibiotics[7],[8]. PRO goes n to make the statement “They would have their background checked for drug abuse, and probably have to have their bodies checked for signs of said abuse before treatment.” To this I must ask how is this bad? Shouldn’t the patient be thourly examined to rule out drug causes, a different issue such as cancer, and to make sure the treatment will not kill the patient faster that the infection will?

2) Doctors can be sued for anything, weather the lose or not depends on if doctors follow governmental policies, institutional polices, and recent evidenced based guidelines. If a doctor were to be sued the patient will have to show they have received harm because the doctor deviated from the protocols.

3) Please see above. TB is not transmitted as easily as you believe.

4) Your right it is classist and unfair, but it’s not about being fair it’s about protecting the larger population.

5) This argument is misrepresenting my argument and not following an actual diagnosis of substance abuse disorder.

6) I’m arguing for the US

7) Drugs are giving in combination even if one has the side effect it’s still a side effect of the combination. Also going along with this the aminioglcosides are horribly hard on the kidneys and if peek and trough levels are not measured regularly the patient can easily slip into renal failure[9]. Most commonly drugs are excreted threw the kidneys in urine. If the body it not producing urine the drug is not filtered out drug levels can quickly rise to unsafe levels resulting in potentially serious complications[10],[11].

Moving on to your plan,

1) Where is the money coming from? Also this does not ensure that homeless people will seek healthcare and if they do it will not ensure that they will follow the strict drug plan.

2) Where is the money coming from? Also how can the doseages be modified in order to completely rid the bacterium and not contribute to an MDR form of TB?

3) This does not fix the current problem.

[1] Medical-Surgical Nursing: Patient Centered Collaborative Care 7th edition by Ignatavicius and Workman.

[2] Focus on Nursing Pharmacology by Amy M. Karch.

[3] Focus on Nursing Pharmacology by Amy M. Karch.

[5] Focus on Nursing Pharmacology by Amy M. Karch.

[8] Focus on Nursing Pharmacology by Amy M. Karch.

[9] Introduction to Critical Care Nursing 6th edition by Sole

[10] Introduction to Critical Care Nursing 6th edition by Sole

[11] Focus on Nursing Pharmacology by Amy M. Karch.



Thank you to Con. I'm glad to see he is apparently very formidable in his knowledge on the subject.

With that, I will launch into some counter rebuttal. I'll endeavor to group arguments.

Con's initial qualm is with my statement that 10-15 new people every year are infected. He says he couldn't find the original source on the WHO website. I did.[1] I respectfully disagree with the book Con has cited, as does the CDC, which states that it can be spread through the air by coughs, sneezes, speaking or singing.[2] But this is just strange on the whole; I really don't understand why Con is arguing this. He needs the rate of spread to be substantial. If it's not, then on what basis does the antibiotic resistance matter to the general community?

He then contests my list of treatments. Let's examine them individually.

Thioamides: This response is perplexing. I don't know what Con thinks an antibiotic is, but it is only an agent that kills or inhibits the growth of any microorganism. There are several thioamides that do this, namely ethionamide and prothionamide.[3]

Aminoglycosides: Streptomycin isn't the only antibiotic in this group that affects TB. They include kanamycin, amikacin and isepamicin. They've been evaluated, at great length.[4]

Cycloserine: It wasn't on your list. And it is quite effective, even against MDR-TB.[5]

Cyclic peptides: Again, sort of lost on how Con is evaluating what is and is not an antibiotic, but these do exist, and they are effective. I've actually provided an example: lassomycin.[6]

Fluoroquinolones: They're not solely used for UTIs. They're actually quite effective, especially sparfloxacin.[4]

PAS: Old and expensive though it is, it is an alternative for when drugs like rifampin encounter resistance.[7] Yes, there are toxicity issues, but an alternative is an alternative, and each one suffices as an opportunity when another fails.

Now, let's get back into Con's explanation of his case.

I'm still really unsure of what the boundaries are for being too poor, though it seems that only those who lack insurance and lack funds are problematic. Con still doesn't specify how poor an individual has to be in order to be denied access; even if they can pay in the long term, their current finances may leave out many individuals, as may a lost insurance card. Recall that this is a complete denial of treatment " Con isn't providing for any short term treatment options. He remains unresponsive to my point about how this would require that patients entering the emergency room be checked for available funds before they receive treatment, which condemns many, even among those who do actually have the resources.

To his credit, Con does clarify substance abusers. Sadly, this only hurts his case. Let's look at what the link says marks a substance abuser:

Tolerance, withdrawal, high doses, persistent desire, spending large amounts of time getting it, giving up other activities, and continuing despite knowing the harm.

Those are seven aspects, and only 3 are necessary to be considered a substance abuser. Frankly, I think I met it when I was addicted to World of Warcraft. Many smokers experience withdrawal, massive intake, and have trouble quitting. Alcoholics often deal with tolerance issues, increased use, and avoiding other activities. Con drops my argument that patients who are not substance abusers can easily be mistaken. How are doctors going to decide that a random person is a substance abuser? How will doctors determine whether someone has quit? What's more, Con never provides a reason for why this group is should be specifically denied access to antibiotics.

Con still doesn't provide a strict boundary past which a person won't be able to get antibiotic therapy due to toxicity. He provides no analysis as to how someone would be tested for these toxicities, nor does he say anything about testing them before treatment. He's solely assuming that these are patients with medical backgrounds that point to vulnerabilities. Con says a patient can't be trusted to make these decisions, but he's is outright ignoring doctor consultation. He's essentially stating that they can never make a good decision, so they should never be allowed the opportunity to decide whether they're willing to endure the toxicity to deal with a disease that may literally be killing them, as TB often does.

Lastly, Con has decided to ignore many of the most important questions on my list. He hasn't explained what the structure will be for denying patients access to treatment. He hasn't explained who will make the decision. Without this information, his case remains incredibly vague.

But let's go back through the rebuttals.

1) Con's responses harm his case. None of these problems are lessened by Con's case. Doctors can still prescribe to patients who don't actually have TB. Doctors can still prescribe too small of a dose. Doctors can still use the wrong antibiotics. In fact, only my case seeks to solve the first and last issues, through DOTs and the Xpert device. All he does it force them to discriminate for all the wrong reasons against all the wrong people. Allowing patients to die is not the solution to the problem, especially when the increased spread of TB that is likely to accompany such a policy is certain to enhance, not reduce, epidemiological concerns. And yes, patients should be checked for physiological concerns, but denying treatment outright is not good policy.

2) Con brushes this off too quickly. Three problems with his response. First, it doesn't address the fact that patients will die and suffer without treatment. Directly denying that treatment gives plenty of reason for individuals to find fault with their doctor's practices, no matter what their guidelines might be. And it can lead to solid grounds for a lawsuit. Second, even if the guidelines somehow prevent some judges from agreeing that these doctors are actively hurting people, there are judges who will decide to play activists and force tremendous costs on doctors. Third, the court clog and time spent by both doctors and patients in court is enough of a harm that, even if doctors win every single case, it's a net detriment.

3) I got to this earlier.

4) Con outright concedes this point. At the point that he's telling the poor that they should die rather than receive necessary medication, Con is effectively treating the poor as disposable for some greater good he can only assume. In fact, his only defense of this is that the poor won't be able to afford the long-term costs of medication, but that's nothing but a gigantic assumption, as are all of his benefits to society. The only certainty here is that the poor will die and suffer en masse.

5) I'm not misrepresenting anything. Con's own DSM link supports the very same problems I've stated here.

6) Con misses the point. He's not effectively doing anything to resistance in TB when all he manages to do is affect the small U.S. population, which already has checks in place to prevent its spread. This is a solvency take-out " Con has to state why affecting the U.S. in the way he's stated will reduce the disease burden on the U.S. or any other nation. He hasn't done so.

7) I provided a list of drugs that avoid the harms depending on the patient. On that list was 6 drugs without any recorded nephrotoxicity. Pro has responded to one of those " aminoglycosides. I'll grant that he's right here, I made a mistake placing them there. But that leaves 5 effective drugs that cause none of these kidney harms.

Where Con really fails to impress, however, is on responses to my counterplan. He basically leaves the majority untouched. To hit on the issues he did address:

1) It would be funded by normal means, which means increased taxation. You're right, it doesn't ensure that the homeless will seek healthcare, but neither does yours. However, only my case encourages them to come, as my second plank provides incentives. Only my case ensures that no one breaks the bank paying for these medications, even if they can afford them. And yes, this plank doesn't ensure adherence, the next does.

2) Again, normal means. Con proceeds to drop DOT, which has been shown to be extremely effective at keeping patients to their correct dosages over a long period of time.[8][9][10] Studies have been done to show that dosing can be modified and still lead to the same cure rates.[11] I explained that monitoring can be used to deal with toxicity issues and ensure that patients are taken off of certain medications before they become deadly. Con doesn't solve for the toxicity issues " if anything, he just ensures that the only people who are normally closely monitored (those whose toxicity is well known) are now going to have no access whatsoever. My case provides higher certainty of better health outcomes for everyone that's treated for TB, whereas his ignores the majority.

3) No, it doesn't fix the problem, but it certainly ensures better outcomes for pretty much everyone with TB. Only this device ensures that patients will be treated with the right antibiotics early. That can reduce the duration of treatment, the expense, ensure better adherence, and better health outcomes. Only this device ensures early detection, making that treatment more effective. Con's case does nothing for the majority of TB patients. My case benefits all of them.

Back to Con.

Debate Round No. 3


JMCika forfeited this round.


I will abstain from posting in this round. Hopefully, over the next three days, my opponent will have time to conclude his arguments. If not, I will leave it for the voters to decide based off of the first 3 rounds alone.
Debate Round No. 4


JMCika forfeited this round.


Well, I am disappointed that we couldn't finish this debate, but I fully understand that Pro is facing medical concerns with his grandmother, and therefore has more important things on his mind. I ask that voters not take these forfeits into account in their decisions, and instead just judge this as though it were a two-round debate. As such, please do not afford me a conduct point.

Thank you to my opponent, and hopefully we will get a chance in the near future to expand on this debate. I wish your grandmother only the best of medical outcomes, and hope that the rest of your family is in good health.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by whiteflame 7 years ago
As I said, I will wait until as much of the time has elapsed as possible to give JMCika as much time as I can manage to post in the last round.
Posted by whiteflame 7 years ago
If that's the case, I will pass that round as well. We have one more anyway, and we can just finish up in R5. If you would like, I can consume the majority of my 3 days just waiting so that you have time to write up a post.
Posted by JMCika 7 years ago
I might need to forfeit this round. My grandmother has become very ill and is now in an ICU on a ventilator. So I apologies in advance if I forfeit a round.
Posted by JMCika 7 years ago
All people infected with TB. Every single one
Posted by DeletedUser 7 years ago
@whiteflame In the first round Con says "Everything else seems self explanatory." So I think you can explain it any way you want after accepting.
Posted by whiteflame 7 years ago
Are you talking about all people with active tuberculosis infections? Or would this more broadly apply? What how would you define "All people with TB"? Make it clear, and I might accept this.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Wylted 7 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I actually think this was a philosophical debate that didn't focus enough on philosophy. A lot of Pro's arguments are barely touched. How would Con's plan be implemented. Do doctor's patients have to bring W2's in. Why should doctors all of a sudden throw away the Hippocratic oath for an oath to the greater good? Con, you can't just be dismissive of arguments, just because they're uncomfortable to deal with. Besides mostly ignoring pro's arguments, con didn't elaborate enough on his. Most of his opening argument was actually just background info on TB. Con should focus more on the things I mentioned in future debates. My criticism of pro is that he didn't get to the meat of what he needed to. Why should everyone get a TB shot? The biggest reason he gave was the deadliness when spread to those with weakened immune systems, but that just seemed like a sub argument instead of a main argument. Anyway, good luck to both of you in future debates.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.