Here we go again: Vaccine Safety and Effectiveness - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.


Communities




Here we go again: Vaccine Safety and Effectiveness

Debate Information

Yes, here go again I say as I understand many people are now sick and tired of hearing about this, at least in my country in the UK anyway. That being said, there are still some people in the UK and lots of people in other places around the world that are still not convinced that the current covid vaccines are safe and effective.

Now while this discussion is open to everyone I would like to ask those that are against having the vaccine a few questions. Firstly, on a scale of 1 to 10 how suspicious are you of taking any of the covid vaccines, with 1 being the least suspicious and 10 being the most suspicious. And once you have done that perhaps you can tell me why rated your suspicion the number you gave?

Perhaps you believe the vaccine was rushed, maybe it is that you believe the vaccine contains a chip used for some government control program? It would also be great that if you could also provide any relevant data/info that is relevant to what you believe in about this. For example, if you are suspicious of the vaccine having severe long time side-effects then what is the reason for this; have you studied the vaccine and in-depth and found out it was tested on people before? If so, how long ago was that, and what is the current follow-up status of the subjects now?

Basically, what I am trying to achieve here is to get an understanding of what you believe about vaccines and why you believe them. So, without further ado, it's now over to you. :)



«13



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 981 Pts   -   edited November 2021
    5/10

    Quick reasons.

    The amount of censorship surrounding Covid in general and the vaccines. The censorship of treatments, including purposeful lies...Joe Rogan ivermectin for example.
    The non acceptance of natural immunity.

    The new technology being used. Definetly not enough time for long term side effects.

    The fact that the vaccine companies have 0 liability.  If they are safe why not just make them put their money where their mouth is.

    High numbers of VAERS reporting. Magnitudes higher than previous vaccines.

    Lastly my hesitancy to take it considers my current health and natural immunity putting me at very, very low risk.
    Israeli study shows natural immunity is better.  Pfizer scientists are on camera agreeing with that.
    https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-once-confers-much-greater-immunity-vaccine-vaccination-remains-vital
    Blastcat
  • 5/10

    Quick reasons.

    The amount of censorship surrounding Covid in general and the vaccines. The censorship of treatments, including purposeful lies...Joe Rogan ivermectin for example.
    The non acceptance of natural immunity.

    The new technology being used. Definetly not enough time for long term side effects.

    The fact that the vaccine companies have 0 liability.  If they are safe why not just make them put their money where their mouth is.

    High numbers of VAERS reporting. Magnitudes higher than previous vaccines.

    Lastly my hesitancy to take it considers my current health and natural immunity putting me at very, very low risk.
    Israeli study shows natural immunity is better.  Pfizer scientists are on camera agreeing with that.
    https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-once-confers-much-greater-immunity-vaccine-vaccination-remains-vital


    5/10 suspicious. Interesting. Some follow-up questions if I may?

    Quick reasons.

    The amount of censorship surrounding Covid in general and the vaccines. The censorship of treatments, including purposeful lies...Joe Rogan ivermectin for example.
    What lies would they be btw and how are they lies?

    he new technology being used. Definetly not enough time for long term side effects.
    So what is the correct quantity of time that a vaccine specifically should be studied scientifically to determine what long-term side effects there are if any?

    The fact that the vaccine companies have 0 liability.  If they are safe why not just make them put their money where their mouth is.

    Why should the vaccine companies have any liability here though? Also, are you suggesting that because the vaccine companies have zero liability this must mean the vaccines are unsafe? 


    High numbers of VAERS reporting. Magnitudes higher than previous vaccines.

    Care to explain what that is exactly?


    Lastly my hesitancy to take it considers my current health and natural immunity putting me at very, very low risk.
    Israeli study shows natural immunity is better.  Pfizer scientists are on camera agreeing with that.
    https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-once-confers-much-greater-immunity-vaccine-vaccination-remains-vital

    Is it mainly this Israeli study that makes you hesitant to take any of the covid vaccines? Is it also this study that has convinced you that you have natural immunity?


    OakTownA



  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 981 Pts   -   edited November 2021
    @ZeusAres42

    There have been many lies and general censorship of any negative information surrounding Covid.

    I'll give several examples.  At the beginning of the pandemic mainstream media including social media was censoring anyone that suggested the virus was man-made in Chinese lab.  We were told by "the scientists" that it was a near impossibility that Covid was man-made. Only to turn around now where it seems that is a higher probability.

    Look at Joe Rogan, anyone taking ivermectin was labeled as a nut, claiming to be taking horse dewormer, even though ivermectin is a prize winning drug combating certain parasitic infections in humans. It's efficacy for Covid is still questioned but the horse dewormer is flat out misinformation.

    The back and forth on whether masks were effective or not.  First we were told no and then we would told yes.  Both times we are told we should follow the science.  So did the science change or do the scientists get it wrong sometimes?

    The initial reports were that those with the vaccine could not spread covid.
    The fear was so high.
    A poll was done (I'll try to find it) 70% of democrats thought covid had a higher than 5% death rate. That's over 10 times the actual rate.

    Try finding something critical on media lies during the pandemic in googlr. It almost always turns it back around and gives results about how large Corp. Needs to censor misinformation and how misinformation is spread 

    Regarding the long term effects.  I'd have to do more research to give you a time frame.  But this vaccine was released far earlier than the average while using new technology that hadn't seen previous widespread use.  It usually takes the FDA about 10 years to approve a vaccine.

    Regarding liability. I'm not saying that automatically means it's not safe.  What I am saying is that if the companies had liability we actually get to see whether they think it is safe or not. If it's largely safe they could deal with having liability if not they'd pull it. I think it be very telling if we removed it.

    VAERS reporting is something the CDC set up try and keep track of negative reactions to certain vaccines/drugs.  They are unverified reports, but like I said these vaccines have negative reports magnitudes higher than previous ones.

    No it is not the Israeli study that makes me hesitant as it doesn't point out any health risks involved with the vaccine.  It's the way the entire pandemic has been handled in general with the consistent censorship and lies.  The corruption that I believe exists.
    Then I take into account my risk of having severe symptoms from Covid and it's very low.
    I'm convinced I have natural immunity because I have had and recovered from Covid.  When has natural immunity not been effective? The Israeli study confirms its effectiveness and Pfizer scientists themselves have been caught saying they believe natural immunity would give a person better immunity than their vaccine.
    Blastcat
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 981 Pts   -  
  • BlastcatBlastcat 409 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Sources, please.

    MichaelElpers 897 Pts   -  November 6 edited November 6
    @ZeusAres42

    There have been many lies and general censorship of any negative information surrounding Covid.

    I'll give several examples.  At the beginning of the pandemic mainstream media including social media was censoring anyone that suggested the virus was man-made in Chinese lab.  We were told by "the scientists" that it was a near impossibility that Covid was man-made. Only to turn around now where it seems that is a higher probability.
    Interesting claim.
    Can you back it up somehow?
  • BlastcatBlastcat 409 Pts   -   edited November 2021
    5/10

    Quick reasons.

    The amount of censorship surrounding Covid in general and the vaccines. The censorship of treatments, including purposeful lies...Joe Rogan ivermectin for example.
    The non acceptance of natural immunity.

    The new technology being used. Definetly not enough time for long term side effects.

    1. I don't take my medical advice from Joe Rogan.
    2. I take my medical advice from qualified medical practitioners who take advice from the experts in the field.There should be good science if everyone is doing their jobs.
    3. I do not see any censorship of the likes of Joe Rogan et al. They spew out disinformation without consequence.
    4. You mention that doctors do not accept that there can be natural immunity .. I would like to see your sources. Hope they are reliable medical science sources. Joe Rogan does not qualify as a reliable medical science source. He has a lay person's opinions.
    5. I don't take you as a qualified medical researcher or a doctor who knows about medicine either, you are on a par with Joe Rogan in that regard. So, although your opinion has been noted, it cannot convince me. You know nothing about about the actual science in how the vaccines were accepted as safe and effective. You know nothing of the actual science.  You have your opinions, of course. I will ignore those. If you have any facts, bring them. Opinions, however, do not stand in for facts OR medical science.



    OakTownA
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 981 Pts   -  
    @Blastcat

    There's quite a bit of evidence it came from the lab.  Not to mention the fact that the coronavirus originated right where the lab is.

    The spike proteins studding SARS-CoV-2 bound more tightly to their human cell receptor, a protein called ACE2, than target receptors on any other species evaluated. In other words, SARS-CoV-2 was surprisingly well adapted to its human prey, which is unusual for a newly emerging pathogen. “Holy , that’s really weird,’” Petrovsky recalls thinking.

    For example, the virus has a “furin cleavage site”, a part of the spike protein that helps it to break into host cells. Many coronaviruses have this, but SARS-CoV-2 is the only member of its sub-genus Sarbecovirus to have one.

    Another region of the spike protein, the “receptor binding motif”, appears to be oddly adapted to latch on to human cells. This adaptation was also observed in the original SARS virus, SARS-CoV-1, but only long after it had jumped to humans. The Wuhan strain of SARS-CoV-2 had it from the get-go.

    They haven't found a coronavirus in the wild that would be covids immediate ancestor. Kind of curious considering we supposedly know where it started.
    Blastcat
  • BlastcatBlastcat 409 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: I asked for your sources. Not a repetition of your claim

    @Blastcat

    There's quite a bit of evidence it came from the lab.  Not to mention the fact that the coronavirus originated right where the lab is.

    The spike proteins studding SARS-CoV-2 bound more tightly to their human cell receptor, a protein called ACE2, than target receptors on any other species evaluated. In other words, SARS-CoV-2 was surprisingly well adapted to its human prey, which is unusual for a newly emerging pathogen. “Holy , that’s really weird,’” Petrovsky recalls thinking.

    For example, the virus has a “furin cleavage site”, a part of the spike protein that helps it to break into host cells. Many coronaviruses have this, but SARS-CoV-2 is the only member of its sub-genus Sarbecovirus to have one.

    Another region of the spike protein, the “receptor binding motif”, appears to be oddly adapted to latch on to human cells. This adaptation was also observed in the original SARS virus, SARS-CoV-1, but only long after it had jumped to humans. The Wuhan strain of SARS-CoV-2 had it from the get-go.

    They haven't found a coronavirus in the wild that would be covids immediate ancestor. Kind of curious considering we supposedly know where it started.

    You forgot to mention your sources for that information.
    I don't LIKE fake news.
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 981 Pts   -  
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 981 Pts   -   edited November 2021
    @Blastcat

    1.  Who said I was getting medical advise from Joe Rogan.  I said the media purposefully lied about what he was taking.  Why did they do that...because they have an agenda.

    Joe Rogan doesn't claim to be a medical expert, but at least he shows sources.  You should look at his podcast with Dr Gupta who has to squirm his away around answerd because he's paid by CNN.

    2 and 3. You don't see censorship because it's hard to see information that Google, Facebook, and large media won't allow you to see.  If the media is so truthful do 41% of democrats think over 50% of people are hospitalized with covid.
    https://hotair.com/john-s-2/2021/03/18/survey-republicans-underestimate-covid-risks-democrats-overestimate-n380956

    They don't censor Joe Rogan? no they just lie and spread misinformation about him to discredit him.  What lies has Joe Rogan spread?

    4. It's apparent in all the mandates and spread of information that don't take into account natural immunity, persons health, or age.  Just a broad sweeping brush. I am deemed selfish for not taking it and would be forced to take it even though I have natural immunity.  What sense does that make?

    5. I didn't give opinions, I provided information that informs my opinion of why I'm not risking the vaccine. If you would like to bring anything to the forefront do it yourself.  Otherwise, you are just commiting authority fallacy. Letting authorities determine all your reasoning for you without looking it up yourself.
    I have not told anyone to take or not take the vaccine.  I generally think it smart for those with comorbidities or elderly to take them.
    Blastcat
  • BlastcatBlastcat 409 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Who said that?

    @Blastcat

    1.  Who said I was getting medical advise from Joe Rogan.  I said the media purposefully lied about what he was taking.  Why did they do that...because they have an agenda.

    Joe Rogan doesn't claim to be a medical expert, but at least he shows sources.  You should look at his podcast with Dr Gupta who has to squirm his away around answerd because he's paid by CNN.


    I asked for your sources of information.
    If you don't take your medical advice from the likes of Joe Rogan, good for you. I never said that you did. I said that I DID NOT. Please read more carefully.

    You still have yet to cite your sources.
    So, I wont bother to continue this unless you do.

    Enjoy your debates !

  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 981 Pts   -  
    @Blastcat

    I did provide two sources.

    Also youre being disingenuous.  If you say that you do not take medical info from Joe rogan, you are insinuating that I was, otherwise there is absolutely no reason to make that comment in the first place.

    It would be like me stating towards you, I don't take my medical advice from children. Even though you never said anything about taking advice from children.
    Blastcat
  • BlastcatBlastcat 409 Pts   -   edited November 2021
    Argument Topic: I must have missed your two sources.

    @Blastcat

    I did provide two sources.

    Also youre being disingenuous.  If you say that you do not take medical info from Joe rogan, you are insinuating that I was, otherwise there is absolutely no reason to make that comment in the first place.

    It would be like me stating towards you, I don't take my medical advice from children. Even though you never said anything about taking advice from children.
    I find your claim provocative and very interesting.
    Could you provide the sources once again, and if you have an actual quote or two, don't be shy. I would like to know how you have arrived at your conclusion.

    Thanks.


  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 981 Pts   -   edited November 2021
  • BlastcatBlastcat 409 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: An opinion is not a fact


    That's right, I did not read them.
    I missed them. Thanks for providing your source of information.

    That was GREAT !

    the title of the article is

    Did COVID-19 originate in a laboratory? Many scientists still harbor questions

    To have questions is not the same as having facts.
    Do you have any facts, or do you just have many questions?
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 981 Pts   -   edited November 2021
    @Blastcat

    Yeah they do have questions but they also have facts about the virus that point to non natural sources  They'll question it until the cows come home because the lab is hiding/destroyed the evidence. Read past the headline.

    Do you not find the statements convincing? Also do you not find it odd they cannot find the direct link to it in nature even though we supposedly know exactly where it originated?

    The fact that any story involving lab leak theories were downplayed as conspiracy theories and censored already show there was a bias from the very beginning.  They don't have facts regarding natural evolution either but it was peddled as 99.9% truth in the beginning.
    Blastcat
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 Emerald Premium Member 2195 Pts   -   edited November 2021
    Hi. Sorry, I was getting bogged down in another debate. Looking at your response now and will get back to you soon. If not, definitely by tomorrow.



  • BlastcatBlastcat 409 Pts   -  
    @Blastcat

    Yeah they do have questions but they also have facts about the virus that point to non natural sources  They'll question it until the cows come home because the lab is hiding/destroyed the evidence. Read past the headline.
    Oh, so there IS no evidence?
  • BlastcatBlastcat 409 Pts   -  
    @Blastcat

    Do you not find the statements convincing? Also do you not find it odd they cannot find the direct link to it in nature even though we supposedly know exactly where it originated?

    Nope. I do not find the statements convincing. I like actual evidence, not just statements. Anecdotal evidence is very weak. It's the worst kind of evidence i can think of, quite frankly. So, a guy makes a statement. Wow. Must be true then?

    Nah, I will need more than just statements. That's why I asked for your sources.
    You have statements and questions. Ok.

    No hard facts.




  • BlastcatBlastcat 409 Pts   -   edited November 2021
    @Blastcat

    The fact that any story involving lab leak theories were downplayed as conspiracy theories and censored already show there was a bias from the very beginning.  They don't have facts regarding natural evolution either but it was peddled as 99.9% truth in the beginning.
    1. If you don't have facts, you have a theory. ( by the way, it should be called a hypothesis, but people use the word theory in non-technical ways. As long as we understand each other, we shall live with "theory" )
    2. If you say that the COVID was the result of a CONSPIRACY,  then you are promoting a conspiracy theory.

    3. Therefore, you are presenting a conspiracy theory based on anecdotal evidence and questions that people might have.

  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 981 Pts   -   edited November 2021
    @Blastcat

    I can see why you just let "authorities" tell you what to believe..

    Its not just a statement.  He clearly stated:
    The spike proteins studding SARS-CoV-2 bound more tightly to their human cell receptor, a protein called ACE2, than target receptors on any other species evaluated. In other words, SARS-CoV-2 was surprisingly well adapted to its human prey, which is unusual for a newly emerging pathogen. “Holy , that’s really weird,’” Petrovsky recalls thinking.

    That is scientific evidence not anecdotal.  Anecdotal means based on personal accounts rather than facts or research, this is research on the virus not a personal account. It wouls be unusual for a natural occurrence to behave that way.
    Blastcat
  • BlastcatBlastcat 409 Pts   -   edited November 2021
    @Blastcat

    I can see why you just let "authorities" tell you what to believe..

    Its not just a statement.  He clearly stated:
    The spike proteins studding SARS-CoV-2 bound more tightly to their human cell receptor, a protein called ACE2, than target receptors on any other species evaluated. In other words, SARS-CoV-2 was surprisingly well adapted to its human prey, which is unusual for a newly emerging pathogen. “Holy , that’s really weird,’” Petrovsky recalls thinking.

    That is scientific evidence not anecdotal.  Anecdotal means based on personal accounts rather than facts or research, this is research on the virus not a personal account. It wouls be unusual for a natural occurrence to behave that way.

    Yes, I do allow the "authorities" to tell me what to believe.
    You believe the people you have used as your source. So, we both do that.

    Someone saying that something is weird is hardly a fact in science.
    Im sorry, but I am not convinced that your sources present anything other than anecdotal evidence and suspicion.
    A guy said something, .. and now others are suspicious.

    Ok.
    They have suspicions.. not actual evidence. you say that it would be unusual for a natural occurrence to happen that way, and THAT might be true. However, there are all kinds of unusual but very natural occurrences. Just because something is unusual does not mean it's unnatural. It could be a rare case. I hope that you can agree that even unusual cases occur in nature.


    You have suspicions.
    Ok. You have the right to be suspicious.
    Let them find the evidence because not all suspicions or claims turn out to be true.
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 981 Pts   -   edited November 2021
    @Blastcat

    I don't blindly believe them.  I look at multiple reports and determine whether their reasoning makes any sense.

    Did you also follow the authorities when they said masks were not effective and not needed at the beginning of the pandemic?  

    You still don't understand what anecdotal evidence is.  Anecdotal is something that happens personally to you.  I.e I had mild covid symptoms so everyone has mild symptoms.

    Also I never said it 100% must have leaked from a lab.  However like this report stated it would be very odd that a virus that supposedly came from bats would group more tightly to a human protein than a bats from which it evolved. It would be like practicing a scenario infecting 1 million bats and then somehow being more adapt to humans.  ScientificTheories can and most often do have evidence to back it up.

    Evolution is actually a theory, but I guess to you that's the same as a conspiracy.
    Blastcat
  • BlastcatBlastcat 409 Pts   -   edited November 2021
    @Blastcat

    I don't blindly believe them.  I look at multiple reports and determine whether their reasoning makes any sense.
    I don't blindly believe them either. But I don't pretend to be able to evaluate the science, Im not a scientist working in that field, and Im not EVEN a scientist.

    Some people like to pretend they know as much as all the experts from around the world do.

    Did you also follow the authorities when they said masks were not effective and not needed at the beginning of the pandemic?  

    I don't blindly believe anyone.
    There were lots of things said.

    However, the wearing of the masks has been very consistent.
    I don't know where you get your information from.

    I go by scientific consensus.
    As scientific data grows, the scientists know more about what they study.
    And I never ever ever expect scientists or any human being to be perfect.

    You still don't understand what anecdotal evidence is.  Anecdotal is something that happens personally to you.  I.e I had mild covid symptoms so everyone has mild symptoms.

    You have a definition of anecdotal that I do not use.

    Also I never said it 100% must have leaked from a lab. 
    I never accused you of saying 100%

    However like this report stated it would be very odd that a virus that supposedly came from bats would group more tightly to a human protein than a bats from which it evolved.

    Just because someone thinks that something is "odd" does not prove a hypothesis.

    Evolution is actually a theory, but I guess to you that's the same as a conspiracy.


    Your guess is completely wrong. And.. I have no idea how you use the word "theory".

  • DeeDee 4703 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers

    Evolution is actually a theory, but I guess to you that's the same as a conspiracy.

    Evolution is a theory and a fact , I never had you down as one of the nuts who deny such ……but there you go 
    Blastcat
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 981 Pts   -   edited November 2021
    @Blastcat

    Masks were not consistent at the beginning of the pandemic.  Fauci said there was no reason to be walking around with a mask on.  The CDC and WHO said only wear one when you are sick.  Now people still wear them even though they supposedly have an effective vaccine.
    They stated this a s fact.  So either they were wrong then or they're wrong now, but it shows they jump the gun.

    You're definition of anecdotal is non existent in the dictionary. You need to look it up.  Anecdotal is basing fact in a personal experience.  He was basing it on a scientific observation made on Covid virus itself.

    I never said it proves, but it does show evidence that increases the probability of lab theory being correct.  That's what I'm trying to show, it's odd to me that you can't accept that as a good form of evidence.
    What to you is evidence, solely an exact match of the virus in the lab?

    Theory:
    supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
    "Darwin's theory of evolution"
    Blastcat
  • BlastcatBlastcat 409 Pts   -   edited November 2021
    " MichaelElpers 898 Pts   -  3:39PM
    @Blastcat

    Masks were not consistent at the beginning of the pandemic. 

    So, you expect perfect consistency.
    I do not.

    This was a NOVEL corona virus, meaning NEW, meaning DIFFERENT.  They had to learn about it first.. they didn't know about it as much as they do now.
    I don't see the problem.

    You're definition of anecdotal is non existent in the dictionary.
    What definition did I use?
    Please quote me.

    Our discussion is about arguing the meanings of words.
    I don't find this kind of thing very interesting.

    IF you think that a definition is important, post a link to a dictionary of your choice.
    And if we cannot agree on the meanings of the words that we are discussing, I will not be interested in continuing the discussion.

    Lets strive for agreements here or move on.

    We will need to agree on the meaning of evidence, of anecdotal, of proof, of facts, and so on.
    Post links for all of these to see if we can agree. If we cannot, then this conversation is POINTLESS.

    I will not be interested in going on.

  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 981 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    I never said it wasn't a fact, I just said it's also a theory which is true.  The opposition seemed to discredit  theories as being based in fact or evidence, I was simply showing the even evolution is considered a theory and pretty universally accepted.
    Blastcat
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 981 Pts   -  
    @Blastcat

    I expect them to be truthful.  To say we don't have much information, but currently we don't see the use of a mask.
    To state everything as 100% fact when they don't have all the information and to censor opposing views leads me lose trust.

    If you do not expect them to get these things right, then that would lead credence to people being skeptical about current information they are given.
    Blastcat
  • BlastcatBlastcat 409 Pts   -   edited November 2021
    @Blastcat

    I expect them to be truthful.  To say we don't have much information, but currently we don't see the use of a mask.
    To state everything as 100% fact when they don't have all the information and to censor opposing views leads me lose trust.

    If you do not expect them to get these things right, then that would lead credence to people being skeptical about current information they are given.

    Your expectations are not evidence. But maybe you don't use the word evidence the same way that I do.
    I have lost trust that you use any word the same way that I do.
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 981 Pts   -  
    @Blastcat

    That statement makes no sense.
    Blastcat
  • BlastcatBlastcat 409 Pts   -  
    @Blastcat

    That statement makes no sense.

    That might be because we don't use words the same way
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 981 Pts   -  
    @Blastcat

    It's not my expectations that are evidence, it's that they stated something and were wrong.
    Blastcat
  • BlastcatBlastcat 409 Pts   -  
    @Blastcat

    It's not my expectations that are evidence, it's that they stated something and were wrong.

    Lets say that they were wrong for the sake of your argument, so what?
    Do you expect them to NEVER be wrong?
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 981 Pts   -  
    @Blastcat

    When they state something as a fact, yes they should be right. If they have little evidence and are stating a recommendation I expect them to express that.

    They've gotten too many things wrong.
    Blastcat
  • BlastcatBlastcat 409 Pts   -   edited November 2021
    @Blastcat

    When they state something as a fact, yes they should be right. If they have little evidence and are stating a recommendation I expect them to express that.

    They've gotten too many things wrong.

    Too many for whom?
    Seems to me that you have convinced yourself.

  • It's been a busy weekend for me and Monday. However, one thing I would like to ask you now is that after your interaction with other members here about this is your stance any stronger or is it the same 5/10?




  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 981 Pts   -   edited November 2021
    @ZeusAres42

    No it hasn't changed because I don't feel any points were refuted.

    Just seemed like an inability to accept evidence contrary to mainstream. There weren't many actual counter arguments.
    Blastcat
  • BlastcatBlastcat 409 Pts   -   edited November 2021
    Argument Topic: no counter arguments

    due to just not being convinced of your crap evidence for lab released covid

    and the fact that we don't agree on what anecdote means
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 981 Pts   -  
    @Blastcat

    Which you provided no counter too.

    And I sorry you don't agree with the actual definition of anecdotal.  But words do have specific meanings.
    Blastcat
  • DeeDee 4703 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers

    Yes the difference is you’re comparing your theories with those of Evolution by cunningly making a claim that theory in both cases is the same , it’s not , Evolution is based on mountains of evidence your theories regards Covid are not 
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 981 Pts   -   edited November 2021
    @Dee

    Yeah I could see your point with how I framed it. Wasn't exactly my intent, there are a wide range theories having lots or little evidence.  I was only defending 1 theory, lab leak.
    The rest is mainly a stance on risk vs reward based on stats, how information has been mishandled, and other unknowns.

    However I would like if someone would either show how the evidence that was posted on covid being most adapt to humans doesn't point to evidence of covid not naturally occuring.
    Blastcat
  • BlastcatBlastcat 409 Pts   -   edited November 2021
    Argument Topic: Repeating ourselves is extremely boring, Mike

    @Blastcat

    Which you provided no counter too.

    And I sorry you don't agree with the actual definition of anecdotal.  But words do have specific meanings.
    You are repeating that I did not counter your "arguments". Well, I did, you didn't notice, perhaps that I did.
    I am not impressed by your sources of information. You offer anecdotal information.

    And, YES, it's no use to repeat that we do not agree on the meaning of the word "anecdotal". You might not think that an anecdote is a STORY. And this is not the first time you wonder how I use very simple words, as you could not fathom the meaning of the word "Start" in another debate:

    MichaelElpers 898 Pts   -  November 4 edited November 4 @Blastcat
    Start is I'll defined. It could mean why the debates happens or the first 3rd of it.

    No use repeating ourselves.
    I know that you don't think I have countered your argument, and I KNOW that we don't agree on the definition of anecdote. You didn't convince me. And by the way, people use words to mean all sorts of things. I asked you to provide a link to a dictionary entry for the terms you have trouble with. I wish you would.

    I think it would help.
  • DeeDee 4703 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers

    Thats fair enough Michael , happy debating 
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 981 Pts   -  
    @Blastcat

    I already copied and pasted the definitions.

    Your counters involve words which you use imaginary definitions.  Simply rejecting sources without providing any alternative argument to why they are wrong, and i don't expect them to get everything right.


    Blastcat
  • BlastcatBlastcat 409 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: I asked for LINKS to dictionary definitions, not just quotes

    @Blastcat

    I already copied and pasted the definitions.

    Your counters involve words which you use imaginary definitions.  Simply rejecting sources without providing any alternative argument to why they are wrong, and i don't expect them to get everything right.



    I insist on links.
    I've had enough of semantic debates.

    I find them BORING
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 981 Pts   -  
    @Blastcat

    I posted links to sources.  The definitions of words came straight from Google, I assume you know how to do that 
    Blastcat
  • BlastcatBlastcat 409 Pts   -   edited November 2021
    Argument Topic: i miss comments, sorry let me look at those links

    @Blastcat

    I posted links to sources.  The definitions of words came straight from Google, I assume you know how to do that 

    I know you posted links to your sources.
    Im asking for dictionary links to your terms because our conversation was devolving into semantic debates.
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 981 Pts   -  
    @Blastcat

    Again I provided the definitions they come straight from Google.  If you thought the definitions were wrong, most Debaters would post there own definition and describe where mine was in error.

    This is why I said you apply no counter arguments to Zeus.  You reject assertions but follow up with nothing to the contrary.  That's hardly a convincing argument.
    Blastcat
  • DeeDee 4703 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers

    This is why I said you apply no counter arguments to Zeus. 

    He never does he deflects everytime . Zeus asked him to clarify several points he made but he refused to answer

     You reject assertions but follow up with nothing to the contrary.  That's hardly a convincing argument.

    I’m afraid that’s the best you can expect from him , he only wants people to agree with him and when you don’t he deflects ……good try all the same trying to get him to do something he rarely does as in debate fairly
    Blastcat
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch