The Instigator
Percivil
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
BrettNortje
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

There are no such thing as viruses

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: 5/1/2018 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 487 times Debate No: 113335
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Percivil

Con

Rules for debate:No forfeting(if youd like to forfeit a round just state I forfeit),each round must always have one argument.

Argument:In 2003,there were hundreds of thousands of deaths due to SARS. Question for my opponent: If viruses dont exist,is it plausible to say that these deaths were coincidences?

In 2014/2015,the zika virus came about affecting people around the globe. Those infected especially pregnent women had odd shaped kids. Question(s) for my opponent: Is there a scientific explanation for this if viruses dont exist? If there is,which parent would want their kids to have odd shaped heads?
BrettNortje

Pro

Whoops, seems I read the topic wrong - I thought i would be debating that viruses do exist and get an easy win! But, seeing as how it is the other way around, and, I have plenty of time on my hands, let's give it a right royal go, yes?

Viruses are actually 'hard bacteria.' if you observe that viruses are diseases that have a soft centre and a hard outside, to protect them from antibodies and white blood cells, while at the same time being less intelligent than a reactive bacteria, you could say they are like stupid hard bacteria, okay?

Answer one: I cannot remember what the first question was, but, I think it was about 'sick people?' People get sick all the time and, these viruses are nothing more than bacteria that have evolved with the prey to become more potent, so, they are actually just bacteria with a mutation.

Answer two: The Zikka Virus is actually a birth defect condition of the reproductive system where the mother will be influenced by the outside world, and, affect her body, including the baby she has inside of her. As the baby grows with the mother, the mother will influence the baby with her movements and so forth; if she smokes, she will give the baby weaker lungs, if she exercises, the baby's heart might be better off. This means 'the virus' is merely related to her having the same environment as the other mothers, and, that includes the air they breathe and food they eat, the most likely sources of these conditions to their children. The answer would be to rectify the children by, as they are still young, injecting them with cells and blood from other relatives of theirs, especially children, as, this will bring about changes in their bodies, making them 'more normal' as they grow to maturity.
Debate Round No. 1
Percivil

Con

Argument:A few months ago in Singapore there was a flu bug going around the country. If the flu is not a virus or if viruses dont exist for the matter, how did so many singaporeans fall ill? H1N1 was another example. And bear in mind I was one of the many who fell victim after coming into contact with someone with the virus. So how can we deny the existence of viruses?

Rebuttals:
"Viruses are actually 'hard bacteria.' "Question for my opponent:So you just affirmed the fact that viruses do exist just that hard bacteria is another name for it. Is that what you just said? If so I just won this debate.

Rebuttal for question one:So when people fall sick its a coincidence hundreds of thousands of people died of the same illnes?

Rebuttal for question 2:
"The Zikka Virus is actually a birth defect condition of the reproductive system where the mother will be influenced by the outside world, and, affect her body, including the baby she has inside of her. "
Although I agree with the fact that activities like smoking affects the baby,but Im pretty sure there isnt an activity where the baby ends up with an odd shaped head.
BrettNortje

Pro

Issue one: I could call the sky orange and I would be right, is that what you are saying? An advanced bacteria is not a virus, as, that would mean that names mean nothing - they are both "organisms."

Rebuttal to question one: A lot of people died with the same symptoms, this does not mean it was a 'virus' that would have the same outcome as other 'infecting' gases or foods.

Rebuttal to question two: If the mother is eating a lot, the baby will get a lot of fuels, yes? If the mother was to have a baby with an irregular shaped head, it would be more likely due to the way she flexes her body when the baby is in the womb, as, that would lead to the baby physically having it's habitat changed, and, thus finding the liveable area changing, there fore changing it's 'head shape.' This would mean that if the habitat can change with bacteria affecting the baby, them other germs could also lead to this happening. This would be down to a lot of helium, I reckon, as that will swell things no end.
Debate Round No. 2
Percivil

Con

Argument:Everything happens for a reason. And everything has a reason. So if viruses dont exist,tell me the reason why its on the dictionary? Also like you said a virus is not a virus,its an advanced bacteria. Can you paste a link of advanced bacteria because I just looked the term up there is just the term bacteria in all the links I saw which did not have the word "advanced" in it. But Ill just play ball anyways. So either way this advanced bacteria is in a way a illness and basically can spread. Why does that sound so familiar? Because its called a virus. Also,if viruses dont exist,explain why AIDS exist in your next argument. Thats definetly not an advanced bacteria(unless this bacteria can just spread all over the place). I believe the term advanced bacteria is known as disease? So we"re just going all around in circles arent we? If viruses arent viruses,its called an advanced bacteria. Whats the difference? If this advanced bacteria of yours can spread like viruses do,I dont see any difference. Show me the difference through a link about your "advanved bacteria" and why is it different from the term virus and hence viruses dont exist.

Rebuttals:

"A lot of people died with the same symptoms, this does not mean it was a 'virus' that would have the same outcome as other 'infecting' gases or foods." If it was that simple,why is it that there is no cure for SARS? Just ways to treat it but no medication or cure(for everyone) for the illness itself.

"If the mother was to have a baby with an irregular shaped head, it would be more likely due to the way she flexes her body when the baby is in the womb, as, that would lead to the baby physically having it's habitat changed, and, thus finding the liveable area changing, there fore changing it's 'head shape.' "
Firstly,Im pretty sure mothers wont flex their body in such a way it will affect the baby.
Secondly,what evidence do you have? Copy and paste a link,thanks. If not Ill just take it as you are stating a hypothesis with no evidence to support your claim.
Thirdly,heres the difference:
This is what you need to know about the average human baby with odd shaped heads:https://www.mayoclinic.org...

This is what happens when the baby is infected with the zika virus:https://www.theatlantic.com...

The difference(if you havent noticed) is:
With an ordinary human baby head with odd shaped heads,that can be fixed as prooven(or stated) in the link.

With zika,not only does it affect the shape of the baby"s head(as you may have seen on the web or the news or something),it also affects the baby"s brain. That cant be fixed.

Lastly,if what you said is true about the mother flexing her body too much,please explain to me why Brazil had the largest zika outbreak? Because many brazillian mothers decided to flex their bodies? Remember,you said and I quote,"If the mother was to have a baby with an irregular shaped head, it would be more likely due to the way she flexes her body when the baby is in the womb, as, that would lead to the baby physically having it's habitat changed, and, thus finding the liveable area changing, there fore changing it's 'head shape.' "
This prooves yet again the results of being infected by the zika virus in brazil,(I think other countries as well)children from two years onwards have things from seizures to blindness:https://www.google.com.sg...
BrettNortje

Pro

G wiz, you are really splitting hairs! I stated that bacteria and viruses are both terms used for organisms that infect things, drawing from them sustenance and harming them.

The difference between diseases and fuels, as they are both alive, is that the one helps while the other harms. Since they are both only trying to survive, the disease through eating and the fuels by symbiosis where they ascend to the bodies functions, they are not trying to help or harm anyone, they are both just reacting with natural phenomenon.

This flexing thing, well, if you were to squeeze a lump of clay, you would find that it will change shape, yes? Imagine squeezing a little zygote, hey? That would disfigure it, but that was just a example. The real thing is bacteria in the air they breathe in, as viruses are spread through matter or a solids or liquid, they would need to eat or drink something in the food supply to get affected. This stands to reason then that viruses will die if they are exposed to dead things, so, the reason they are sick is not because they ate dead animals or drank polluted water, but rather that they got the advanced bacteria into their bodies, or the disease, mind you, by some other means. The aids virus, as you brought up, is spread through sex and blood transfusion, the blood transfusion is active as it is insulated. This keeps activity of a living sort active. Dead meat or polluted water is exposed to air which has oxygen in it that will age anything exposed to it, as, the oxygen is very reactive to brining reactions in things - that is why it is so sought in the bodies of people, they need it to help with osmosis of cells and stuff like that.

Then, the actual case we are dealing with is is there such a thing as a virus, and, you can quote any doctor or page on the net that says that diseases are usually 'bacteria' or 'viruses,' but, they are both only terms for little living things that eat away at matter instead of 'harmonizing' with them. It is like saying there is a Santa Claus because there is some guy dressed up as him.
Debate Round No. 3
Percivil

Con

Argument:Coming back to the topic on SARS:if it were that simple,why did docters take that long to find out it was a new illness in the flowchart? Let me explain:
By flowchart I mean something doctors use. For example if you sweat alot, the doctors will go down the chart and continue asking questions if you feel weak. If so the doctor can classify it under a fever. If we talk about SARS,in 2003 there were no arrows down the flowchart of syntoms which could classify the virus as something as simple as the common cold.

So if viruses like SARS dont exist, why couldnt doctors successfully go down the flowchart and classify the sickness as the common cold(or other things like a fever,a dry cough,sore throats,etc)?

Rebuttals:
"Then, the actual case we are dealing with is is there such a thing as a virus, and, you can quote any doctor or page on the net that says that diseases are usually 'bacteria' or 'viruses,' but, they are both only terms for little living things that eat away at matter instead of 'harmonizing' with them." So there are such things as viruses just that doctors call them diseases or in your case just known as organisms.

"This flexing thing, well, if you were to squeeze a lump of clay, you would find that it will change shape, yes? Imagine squeezing a little zygote, hey? That would disfigure it, but that was just a example. "I agree what you say is right. But if you had read all the links,you can see that people(children to be specific)who were infected by the(in your case) fairy tale called zika suffered things from seizures to blindness. Not to mention hard to the brain as well:https://www.theatlantic.com.... So when you gave the example of the mother flexing,there was no evidence of that harming the brain versus when a toddler is infected with zika the brain is affected.

"The aids virus..." if viruses dont exist,you wouldnt have used the term virus. Instead you would have used something else(not too sure what you"d use but definetly not the term virus since youre in pro choice).

Question:
"I stated that bacteria and viruses are both terms used for organisms that infect things, drawing from them sustenance and harming them." So what are you trying to say exactly? "Viruses" exist but we need to use another name called organisms? Please use a link so its easier for me to understand.
BrettNortje

Pro

There is a term for a disease or rapidly and detrimental condition called a virus, but, that is just a 'name.' Nouns are not real words, you could make anything up and assign it to anything you want.
Debate Round No. 4
Percivil

Con

Well no argument from you but yea Im just gonna go on.

Argument:Is there any other sickness that can replace ebola? No other sickness will have all these syntoms:https://www.mayoclinic.org.... Question for my opponent:If a sickness like this would be that simple, why was it so bad in africa which was the hotspot for ebola? Only africa had so many cases compared to other countries which barely had any cases.

Statement:ladies and gentlemen,note that when I asked my opponent to paste a link to support his claim on the advanced bacteria he just gave me his point of view and not evidence from links? Which brings me to question:Have other people given scientific evidence of this advanced bacteria and that its not a virus? Or is my opponent making B.S up(which he/she should understand since he gave me a definition of his advanced bacteria which to me is still a hypothesis or a claim with no evidence)
BrettNortje

Pro

You really are making this easy for me, as Ebola is 'a messy disease.' It is basically the most dirty disease you can imagine, as, it is where cells divide at a accelerated rate by quickly grabbing what they can from living cells. This is like a 'market crash,' with everybody unloading stocks to get out with as much money as they can, okay? So, they just infect and move on as quickly as possible, caring little for what the cells look like after they have been through. This is evidence of something that is alive, as, all diseases are alive little living things - yes, organisms - that eat and divide via cellular division to 'spread their cause.' Every living things seeks to dominate the world through cellular division, as is evidenced in things like predation.

These terms we use to describe diseases are just that, as the terms of the opening post show, these things are just names, and, names count for zip. It is the definitions that matter.
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.