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

Germs are not the cause of disease.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/9/2018 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 634 times Debate No: 119411
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




"Germs are not the cause of disease but are the result of a disease" - Antoine bechamp.


The term "Germ" can represent many things and is not exclusively relative to disease.

I would therefore suggest that Pro's contention is somewhat naive. Despite what Antoine Bechamp might have to say on the matter.

The term "Pathogen" is probably a better descriptive of disease causation by micro-organism.

True or False?
Common respiratory infections result from the inhalation of a viral pathogen and not from the exhalation of a viral pathogen.
Debate Round No. 1


Niether inhaling nor exhaling will cause any infection of any description.

This is mainly due to the fact that viruses don't exist.

If my oponent can prove that viruses exist and are logical entities, Then he can easily win the debate.

Good luck!


Realistically: Isn't it impossible for anything to exist?

But realistically we assume that something does exist.

I think therefore I am and all that existential stuff.

Though existence ultimately descends into the realms of imaginary magic.

And besides: Relatively speaking viruses are little monsters. As are we.

And if he was not so ashamed that he didn't have to wear pants all the time, Then maybe those fungal pathogens wouldn't make him scratch his bollocks all the time. Or maybe not of course.

So: In time and space as all those bits and bobs flicker in our imagination and any other imagination that cares to consider things. Can Pro actually determine reality?

Therefore: If my opponent can prove that viruses do not exist and are not logical entities, Then they can easily win the debate also.

I do not particularly care either way. But would they just promise to let me know if they can. Then I can stop worrying about the cost of electricity and plastic waste in the oceans and asteroids and haemorrhoids and any other imaginary impending doom scenarios.

Good luck!
Debate Round No. 2


It appears that my opponent has no knowledge of viruses or germs and is just here to play a bluffing game on who has the responsiblity of proving that they are right. As I m not interested in playing polical games, I can't respond to his nonsesne until he offers some logical argument.


It also appears that my opponent has no knowledge of viruses or other pathogens or "germs".

And my opponent was the first to introduce bluff into the proceedings.

They also initiated pseudo-philosophy. So I therefore make no apologies for my previous response.

If the proposition is logical then the onus is on Pro to expound their theory.

Otherwise we are left with a simple stalemate.
Debate Round No. 3


My oponent clearly was not satified with the subject matter and title of the debate. Despite his dissatifaction he still proceeded with the debate and also demanded that the subject matter of the debate be changed to his liking. Thus, Once he had created a new subject topic, Then, The responsiblity of proof shifted over to the new insigator.

Quote from Con "True or False?
Common respiratory infections result from the inhalation of a viral pathogen and not from the exhalation of a viral pathogen. "

Thus, It is now con who has the burden of proof.

Also, Yes/No and True/false answers. Does not constitute a debate.

Quote "Realistically: Isn't it impossible for anything to exist? "

Answer - Yes, Con. You don't exist! Lol


1) Pro assumes dissatisfaction on my part. Why?

2) "True or False" is a simple direct question in response to Pro's minimalist approach to the debate. Pro loosely promotes theory, But without substance.

3) Therefore Pro must elaborate their position to enable the debate to move forwards. That is to say: The burden of proof started with the instigator and has not yet shifted.

4) Substance constitutes a debate and Pro is clearly lacking in substance.

5) Realism and existentialism or not?

6) Yes. It all boils down to the same thing in the end. Ha Ha.
Debate Round No. 4


Well, Its quite obvious that you are just a waffler and time waster. You only joined this debate as a way of blocking the truth and thowing a spanner into the works. I am an expert on disease so I didn't appreciate your corrections which are just ridiculous nonsense. Your misguided belief that germs cause disease will cause you much anticpated grief in the future. Lol



As Pro clearly doesn't actually understand what a "germ" is or might do.

And as I was the only one who as actually attempted to initiate any sort of proper debate.

I will therefore assume a righteous victory regardless of what the voting outcome might be.

Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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