EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum
Views:
197

Re: Prescription Medication is Poison.

(PRO)
0 points
(CON)
WINNER!
4 points
crossedcrossed (PRO)
i have been wanting to debate you for a while thank you for the opportunity

fluoride in water

Nazi Germany put fluoride in the drinking water of the Jews to  make them more stupid and docile during ww2.


conspiracy theorist then started  claiming our us government is doing the same to us.

this was proven true when the  us government admitted they put  fluoride in our water. but claim they put it in there to help with dental  hygiene.



https://www.naturalnews.com/037375_Big_Government_conspiracy_theories_fluoride.html
https://www.cancerdefeated.com/newsletters/Is-Your-Water-Supply-Being-Poisoned-by-the-Government.html
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/05/12/fluoride-overdose.aspx
http://www.poisonpaste.com/fluoride-nazi-link.php

pharmaceutical drugs in water

why do i bring this up. in tap water they are putting pharmaceutical drugs in our water
https://drpompa.com/cellular-health/home-water-filtration-systems-dangers-tap-water/


3 antibiotics were found in our water

  • Chlortetracycline
  • Chloramphenicol
  • Erythromycin

the side effects from these antibiotics alone should be enough to deter someone from putting these in the water


antibiotics cause osteoporosis so what if someone developed a hunch back because they are putting this in the water.
http://www.osteodigest.com/medications-that-cause-osteoporosis.html



that is not all they also put these pharmaceutical drugs in the water

  • Atenolol (a beta-blocker)
  • Carbamazepine (an anticonvulsant)
  • Gemfibrozil (an antilipidemic)
  • Meprobamate (an antianxiety medication)
  • Phenytoin (an anticonvulsant

for the sake of space lets talk about only one of the side effects of these drugs
Atenolol

this drug only has a couple side effects which is surprising
https://www.drugs.com/sfx/atenolol-side-effects.html

side effects of atenolol.

  • Blurred vision
  • cold hands or feet
  • confusion
  • difficult or labored breathing
  • dizziness, faintness, or lightheadedness when getting up from a lying or sitting position suddenly
  • shortness of breath
  • sweating
  • tightness in chest
  • unusual tiredness or weakness
  • wheezing

  • Bloody urine
  • decreased frequency or amount of urine
  • increased blood pressure
  • increased thirst
  • loss of appetite
  • lower back or side pain
  • nausea
  • swelling of face, fingers, or lower legs
  • vomiting
  • weight gain

  • Black, tarry stools
  • bleeding gums
  • blood in urine or stools
  • blurred or loss of vision
  • bone or joint pain
  • disturbed color perception
  • double vision
  • feeling that others are watching you or controlling your behavior
  • feeling that others can hear your thoughts
  • feeling, seeing, or hearing things that are not there
  • fever
  • halos around lights
  • night blindness
  • overbright appearance of lights
  • paleness or cold feeling in fingertips and toes
  • pinpoint red or purple spots on skin
  • severe mood or mental changes
  • skin irritation or rash, including rash that looks like psoriasis
  • skin rash, hives, or itching
  • sore throat
  • swollen or painful glands
  • tingling or pain in fingers or toes when exposed to cold
  • tunnel vision
  • unusual behavior
  • unusual bleeding or bruising

  • Anxiety
  • coma
  • cool, pale skin
  • depression
  • dilated neck veins
  • extreme fatigue
  • headache
  • increased hunger
  • irregular breathing
  • nervousness
  • nightmares
  • seizures
  • shakiness
  • slurred speech
  • unusual drowsiness, dullness, tiredness, weakness, or feeling of sluggishness



what if someone suffer from side effect from the drug Atenolol being put in the waterwater

lets talk about the worst offenders here.
what if someone suffers from
"sudden shortness of breath or troubled breathing"because they added atenolol to the water.


our water can cause us to stop breathing because someone added a pharmaceutical drug to it let that sink in.

what if someone who drinks water suffers from the side effects

  • feeling that others are watching you or controlling your behavior
  • feeling that others can hear your thoughts
  • feeling, seeing, or hearing things that are not there
because they are adding pharmaceutical drugs to our water

 pharmakeai


the word pharmakeai means

  1. the use or the administering of drugs
  2. poisoning
  3. sorcery, magical arts, often found in connection with idolatry and fostered by it
  4. metaph. the deceptions and seductions of idolatry
https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/pharmakeia.html



the word pharmakon means

from pharmakon (a drug)
Definition
a poisoner, sorcerer, magician
NASB Translation

https://biblehub.com/greek/5333.htm



the world health association symbol is a snake on a stick

disturbing facts

pharmaceutical is the 4th leading cause of death in usa

https://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/11/20/how-pharmaceuticals-came-to-be-the-4th-leading-cause-of-death-in-america



people life are ruined through addiction with medication. just like crack cocaine

https://www.turnbridge.com/news-events/latest-articles/most-addictive-prescription-drugs


prescription medication is more dangerous than street drugs
https://www.mapleleafmeds.com/blog/prescription-drugs-dangerous-street-drugs-2/




prescription medication is the number 1 reason for overdose beating out illegal drugs


pharma company started the opioid epidemic
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/saving-normal/201710/pharma-corruption-started-the-opioid-epidemic



look at the millions big pharma has given to politicians

is it not a terrible coincidence that the word pharmaceutical was created off of the greek pharma words and which means poisoning with drugs and it just happens to be that pharmaceutical is the 4th leading cause of death
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/pharmaceutical


in fact over 100 thousands people die from taking there meds


ps pharmakeai was used in several end times prophesy in the but it was translated out and replaced by sorcery changing the prophesy meaning

http://www.theopenscroll.com/pharmakeia.htm

i took these off duck and go images

Sword of the spirit audio broadcast # 14 drug sorcery ...
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=pharmakeai&t=ffab&atb=v133-1&iax=images&ia=images


Return To Top | Posted:
2019-04-14 22:22:13
| Speak Round
dpowell3543dpowell3543 (CON)

I'd like to start off by thanking my opponent for accepting this debate and to state that I am glad that they are eager to. Now, onto my rebuttals/arguments.

Section 1: I know I'm not following along with Pro's arguments in order, but bear with me. My opponent provides the definitions of the words "pharmakei" and "pharmakon" words that were used hundreds or thousands of years ago and can't be found in any modern dictionary. At least, none that I could find outside of the sources my opponent has provided. I make this point because the words they use are of older etymology. Therefore the meaning of the word, and the word itself is irrelevant to the today's standards. Allow me to provide the current definition of our modern version: pharmacy.

Pharmacy- the science or practice of the preparation and dispensing of medicinal drugs.

I know the definition itself is irrelevant, but I would like to point out one major part of it. The medicinal drugs, to be exact. Let's look at what medicinal means:

Medicinal- having healing properties.

Now that we know this, let's look at what poison means.

Poison- a substance that is capable of causing the illness or death of a living organism when introduced or absorbed.

Now. Why are these important? One may ask. Well, it's important because there is a fine line between poison and medicine. I just wanted to point this out now as we will be going over it a little later. Now, on to the next point.

Section 2: My opponent pointed out snakes being present in medical symbols. They claimed that that was a clear sign of them trying to poison people.  This simply isn't true. Snake venom has some medicinal properties to it. Let's look at a few examples that Dr. Becker has provided in the article I shall link below. 

*Brazilian lance head viper: used to treat high blood pressure.
*Saw-scaled viper: used to help prevent blood from clotting.
*King cobra: could potentially help with chronic pain.

These are just a few examples of how snake venom can truly be medicinal, not just deadly. Saying that medical groups who have snakes in their symbols is just not giving them or the snakes the benefit of the doubt. Though this field has yet to be fully explored, each snake has the potential to possibly save a lot of people. Besides. It's not like snakes just, go around biting people. But, I'm getting off track here. Let's get back to the main point.

https://healthypets.mercola.com/sites/healthypets/archive/2015/10/13/venom-toxins.aspx

Section 3: My opponent claims that the Nazis put chemicals in the water. Well, I for one can't say that it wouldn't surprise me. However, given the fact that that would have happened a long time ago, it is irrelevant to today. Also, Nazis were known for doing evil things with or without drugs, so I do believe that they are not a good example to use in an attempt to prove that prescription medication is poison. My opponent also claims that the U.S. government also puts chemicals in our water. I have two rebuttals for this claim.

     1. First off, my opponent clearly states that these are conspiracy theories. So they should be taken with a grain of salt.  They also claim that the government has supposedly admitted this. However, there's one major flaw that my opponent hasn't seen in their arguments. Its not the federal government's job to regulate the water. That's up to each individual state. Either way, I highly doubt anyone is maliciously putting drugs into the water, so I wouldn't necessarily say that people are being poisoned.

    2. People don't have to drink the water straight from the faucet. They can always filter it themselves or find other, healthier alternatives to get their necessary water. Everyone is, or at least, should be aware of this. So, no one can say anyone's poisoning anyone.

Section 4: My opponent's biggest claim so far, is that prescription medication has side effects. This is true, but it doesn't prove that they're poison. In all technicalities, everything has side effects. Eating causes us to defecate, or get sick (if it's not cooked properly) or give us acid reflux. Not to mention all the food allergies out there. Then there's breathing. Breathing leads to, polluted lungs, sneezing, yawning and many other things. I don't see anyone saying that food is poison, or the air is poison. Just because there are possible side effects, doesn't mean it's bad. The thing about prescription drugs though, is that you're not guaranteed to experience any side effects. Hence every commercial says that you "may" experience some. Let's take a look at one drug my opponent has provided. Let's look at Atenolol. Yes, it side effects, yes, some of them do seem to be very bad. However, looking at mayoclinic.org, they specifically state that some patients may experience some side effects. Notice the words I underlined? Exactly. Not everyone will. So far, I haven't been able to find any sort of record of people experiencing side effects from Atenolol at all. Just lists of possible ones. I did however, find a page that expressed exactly how and when one should take Atenolol. It also expresses that one should speak to their doctor before taking it and before stopping it. Now let's look at the current most popular prescription medication: Synthroid. Let's see how many side effects there are. Synthroid has a whole 34 side effects one could possibly experience. Doctors hand out nearly 23 million prescriptions for this drug monthly. That's about 276 million yearly. Now, my opponent would probably try to argue in some way that everyone experiences the side effects. But that's not true. Much like Atenolol, I really struggled finding any kind of number of people who have experienced side effects. But I did find some reviews. I read approximately 11 reviews and out of those 11, only 5 claimed they experienced side effects. That's 45%. So, let's assume that 45% of the people taking the medication experience these side effects. Let's use the yearly estimation for this equation. That would be approximately 124,200,000 people experiencing side effects. That would seem pretty bad, but remember, 55% of people don't experience these. Either way, that still seems pretty bad. But that's just theory. In reality, don't you think that we'd hear something if that many people actually experienced the side effects? I would sure say so. I'm sure the doctors would stop prescribing it too. At the end of the day, it just comes down to common sense. Everyone who experience side effects do so because either:
   A. They weren't completely honest with the doctor so they ended up getting the wrong medication. Or,
   B. They already had a pre-existing condition that made them more susceptible to the side effects. 

Some people experiencing side effects just doesn't prove that prescription medication is poison. Especially since they help more than they hurt. I used to take prescription medication myself and I'm perfectly fine.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/atenolol-oral-route/side-effects/drg-20071070?p=1
https://www.rxlist.com/synthroid-drug.htm#interactions
https://www.drugs.com/comments/levothyroxine/synthroid.html

Section 5: My opponent claimed that big pharma gives millions to politicians. This is more or less true. However, it is irrelevant since it doesn't prove that prescription medication is poison.

Section 6: My opponent claimed that prescription medication was the 4th leading cause of death in the U.S.  This is just plain false in itself. In 2016-7 the fourth leading cause of death was chronic lower respiratory diseases and from what I've discovered during my research, it still is. In fact, prescription medication isn't even on the list. Compared to the items on the list, the amount of people who die from drugs is insignificant. Especially since most of those people probably died from over dosing.

Now before I go. I would like to ask my opponent to provide concrete evidence to prove that prescription medication is poison. 

Return To Top | Posted:
2019-04-15 19:09:14
| Speak Round
crossedcrossed (PRO)
i'm sorry about how it gets all funky at the bottom this site is acting really weird.



firstly con states that the word pharmakeai and pharmakon have no relevance to the debate since these words have no use nowadays
this simply is not true we derive the word pharmacy from the word pharmakeai. for this to happen the founder of the pharmacutical industry they created there pharma words off of pharmakeai and others

etomology online dictionary says pharmacy came from pharmakeai
https://www.etymonline.com/word/pharmacy


alright but i hear you say there lying

dictionary.com says there origins come from these greek word dictionary.com why would they make this up
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/pharmaceutics




dictionary.com says

it originated from pharmakon










if you look at yourdictionary.COM you get under origin

https://www.yourdictionary.com/pharmaceutical


Origin of pharmaceutical

Late Latin pharmaceuticus from Classical Greek pharmakeutikos from pharmakeuein, to practice witchcraft, use medicine from pharmakon, a poison, medicine











if you look at the Merriam Webster dictionary
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pharmaceutical#other-words
if you scroll down far enough you get this
 

History and Etymology for pharmaceutical

   

Adjective

  

  Late Latin pharmaceuticus, from Greek pharmakeutikos, from pharmakeuein to administer drugs — more at pharmacy

 
we know what those words mean








snake and stick symbol.


do you believe the reason the pharmaceutical industry has a snake and stick is because the snake is used as medicine. because it seems way more likely that it is because it is snake oil or it represents how they are poisoning people since snakes are poisoning. well if big pharma sold eggs that might be true but since they sell medication its more likely because it is snake oil. just because snake venom can help people 99 percent of people see it as a poisioning substance so why would they use it for there medical logo would that not confuse people.


poisoning the water

alright when something becomes true it no longer becomes a conspiracy theory.  I said it was a conspiracy theory that became true government has been putting fluoride in the water there reasoning is terrible they claim it for dental reasons which is bull. secondly there are pharmaceutical drugs in the tap water this is a nation wide issue there are 25 of them. this being in the water is bad anyway you look at it beside Atenolol an its schizophrenic side effect which include
  • "feeling that others are watching you or controlling your behavior" "feeling that others can hear your thoughts" "feeling, seeing, or hearing things that are not there" there are another 77 side effects along with that that. anyway lets be real here and have common sense this is not being put in the water to help people. estrogen from birth control pills are in the water. who in the hell would that help. it is not even the entire birth control pill its just the esrogen. the only possibility why they would put this in the water this is most of the country is to harm us or poison us. a 70 year old female who i live with takes atenolol do you believe it would be safe if you started taking her medication. why is it here. con says that he does not find many people talking about there side effects and that means it does not happen. firstly people do not talk about this stuff almost no one this is a personal issue so if someone suffers from a terrible side effect. there is no way they are sharing that publicly. almost no one is healthy in america this there is a couple of reasons for this besides medicine like i believe that our food and water is poisoned to. besides all the chemicals in our food 13 million iq points have been lost due to pesticides on foods just in eruope  https://www.plantbasednews.org/post/eu-report-claims-13-million-iq-points-lost-after-pesticide-exposure     these side effects have nothing to do with the drug. for example antibiotics cause osteoporosis. antibiotics is just edible soap that kills germs. why does eating something that merely kill germs cause my spine to bend. that is like if i washed my hands with soap and the soap causes the bones in my feet to crack. http://www.osteodigest.com/medications-that-cause-osteoporosis.html

  • what are these healthier options besides tap water. water bottles terrible two.most can not afford to  build there own wells and let me tell you a secret bottled water is tap water
  • https://www.mindbodygreen.com/0-11193/7-reasons-to-never-drink-bottled-water-again.html






  • con said

  • Poison- a substance that is capable of causing the illness or death of a living organism when introduced or absorbed.



  • by this definition prescription medication is poison . prescription medication is capable of causing illness via the side effects and death 100 thousand people die each year. there it is poision by your definition




  • con said

  • Section 6: My opponent claimed that prescription medication was the 4th leading cause of death in the U.S. This is just plain false in itself. In 2016-7 the fourth leading cause of death was chronic lower respiratory diseases and from what I've discovered during my research, it still is. In fact, prescription medication isn't even on the list. Compared to the items on the list, the amount of people who die from drugs is insignificant. Especially since most of those people probably died from over dosing.

  • Now before I go. I would like to ask my opponent to provide concrete evidence to prove that prescription medication is poison.


    i said pharmacutical is the 4th leading cause of death





  • con said
  • Section 5: My opponent claimed that big pharma gives millions to politicians. This is more or less true. However, it is irrelevant since it doesn't prove that prescription medication is poison.


  • it means they are not as squeaky clean as you make them sound.


  • Return To Top | Posted:
    2019-04-17 19:18:13
    | Speak Round
    dpowell3543dpowell3543 (CON)
    I would like to thank my opponent for their response, now on to the rebuttals.

    Section 1: My opponent starts his arguments by stating that my claim on pharmakeai and pharmakon are not true since the word "pharmacy" was made from those words. However, this point is invalid. Why? Simple. Just because a word was made from an older word, doesn't mean the older word is still relevant. Words, definitions and meanings change all the time. Does not mean the older words are still relevant. My opponent also stated that I claimed that the people who made provided the definitions of these ancient words are lying. I would like to point out that I never said that. I simply pointed out that since the words aren't present in any modern dictionary, they are no longer relevant since no one uses them.

    Section 2: My opponent seems to have misunderstood my points about the snakes. I claimed that neither of us should look down upon the snakes because there is potential medicinal properties in snake venom. My opponent also claims that 99% of people know that the venom has poisoning effects and no medicinal effects and claims that any medicine using snake venom is "snake oil".  Given my opponent's points this round about it, they have led me to believe that my opponent has failed to take into consideration the examples I have provided as well as the article I also provided. According to the source I will provide below, there are already 6 FDA approved drugs made with animal's venom. From spider to scorpions, snakes to snails. It also discusses all the potential possibilities of all that venom.  Yes, a snake bite can poison someone. But that doesn't mean that snake venom can only poison people. As for the snakes being on the medical emblem, my opponent is way off on their understanding of it. In fact, it has nothing to do with poison at all. There's actually two stories behind this. Let's look at both.
     
          1. This one concerns Hermes, the Greek god of mischief, messages and traveling. Given that he's known for traveling, he would have knowledge in medicines given that that would be useful information at the time. In one telling of this story, Hermes uses his staff to separate 2 fighting snakes, who then wrap around it in balanced harmony. Hence replacing the ribbons.

          2. In this other story, Zeus kills a man named Asclepius for raising the dead, the placed him among the stars as the constellation Ophiuchus. Since then the Greeks viewed snakes as sacred and would use them in healing rituals to honor him.

    As everyone can see, there is nothing to do with poison in any of these origin stories. Therefore, the snakes being on the medical emblem is irrelevant since it doesn't prove that prescription drugs are poison.

    https://www.chemistryworld.com/features/from-venoms-to-medicine/3008360.article
    https://www.livescience.com/33104-why-is-the-medical-symbol-a-snake-on-a-stick.html

    Section 3: In this section, we'll have 2 sub points. One will be concerning the water, the other will be concerning the side effects of prescription medication.

           Point  1: My opponent has yet again brought the drugs in the water supply. If my opponent and the readers/judges would be so kind as to refer to my points on this in round one, everyone would see how I debunked these points. Given that fact, my opponent's attempts to keep pushing the argument is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if there is drugs in the water or not, why they're there or who put them there. It doesn't change the fact that the drugs that are in our water have so far proven to be harmless. I've also pointed out that everyone knows and is capable to finding cleaner, safer and healthier alternatives if they so choose. Again, this doesn't prove that prescription drugs are poison. 

          Point 2: My opponent yet again attempts to claim that prescription medication having side effects is proof that they're poison. Again, I have already discredited these claims in round one. Every thing has side effects. Everything we do in life has side effects. My opponent used the definition of poison, to try to prove his claims. However, that argument is flawed. Allow me to show everyone how. Running has the side effects of cramping and heavy breathing. Heavy breathing could potentially make some people sick and/or die, such as asthmatics. Are we to just assume that running is therefore, poison? Since it has side effects that could potentially make someone ill or kill them? Eating a Carolina Reaper has side effects. The inside of your mouth burns, you throw up and some people have even died. Are we then supposed to assume that Carolina Reapers are poison? What about oxygen? If oxygen gets into our blood stream, we will die. Are we supposed to assume that oxygen is poison? No. That's ludicrous. Poison, despite what the definition says, it intentionally created to kill something. Last I checked, oxygen, running and Carolina Reapers weren't intentionally created to kill people. Another point at made in round one is that so few people actually experience side effects from these drugs, that it's almost as if these incidences never even happen in the first place. That right there is enough to prove that prescription medication is poison. So. Without listing any of the side effects of these drugs. I ask my opponent to prove that these drugs have done great harm to a lot of people. I ask that they prove, with actual, scientific/medical, proof read, fact checked evidence that these prescription drugs are poison.

    Section 4: Now we're back to the death part again. After quoting my 6th section from round one, my opponent corrected me and stated that they said that pharmaceuticals is the 4th leading cause of death. This point is redundant since I have already proven otherwise. Last I checked, Chronic Respiratory Disease isn't caused by pharmaceuticals. Outside of that though. My opponent has failed to provide the proof I have asked for.

    Section 5: My opponent makes yet another irrelevant claim. They quoted my arguments from round 1, section 5, pointing out that big pharma donating money to politicians doesn't prove that prescription medication is poison. My opponent responded by claiming that it proves that big pharma isn't as squeaky clean as I have claimed. Well I have two responses to this. The first one being. I never said they were squeaky clean. The second one is. This doesn't prove anything at all. A lot of people donate a lot of money to politicians, it doesn't make them bad or good. Though this is debate for a different time. Let's say big pharma donated a few million dollars to Disney World. Does that prove anything? No. It especially doesn't prove that prescription medication is poison.

    Round Conclusion: Essentially, my opponent has failed to disprove any of my arguments thus far. Therefore, all of my arguments from the last round, still stand. My opponent also failed to provide any solid evidence to support their claims. Listing side effects or pointing out that there may or may not be drugs in the water, does not prove that prescription medication is poison. With that said. I look forward to the next and last round, hoping that my opponent can provide better, more relevant arguments.

    Return To Top | Posted:
    2019-04-19 20:24:24
    | Speak Round
    crossedcrossed (PRO)
    my internet died and i am unable to get my draft at home and i am using my schools computer



    selling drugs to heal people but then taking the name of your drug and basing it off a word that means poisoning with drugs is like if i created a christian chruch and then name the church off of a word that means hail Satan.


    they are posioning our water with prescrition medication. why would someone put only part of a drug in the water an example estrogen from birth control pills. the only reason someone would do that is if they intended harm



    firstly the reasonm why you can not find people talking about getting side effects from drugs online is because people do not share that information

    con said

    Not everyone will. So far, I haven't been able to find any sort of record of people experiencing side effects from Atenolol at all. Just lists of possible ones. I did however, find a page that expressed exactly how and when one should take Atenolol. It also expresses that one should speak to their doctor before taking it and before stopping it. Now let's look at the current most popular prescription medication: Synthroid. Let's see how many side effects there are. Synthroid has a whole 34 side effects one could possibly experience. Doctors hand out nearly 23 million prescriptions for this drug monthly. That's about 276 million yearly. Now, my opponent would probably try to argue in some way that everyone experiences the side effects. But that's not true. Much like Atenolol, I really struggled finding any kind of number of people who have experienced side effects. But I did find some reviews. I read approximately 11 reviews and out of those 11, only 5 claimed they experienced side effects. That's 45%. So, let's assume that 45% of the people taking the medication experience these side effects. Let's use the yearly estimation for this equation. That would be approximately 124,200,000 people experiencing side effects. That would seem pretty bad, but remember, 55% of people don't experience these.

    my rebuttal

    if you suffered from yellow eyes and skin from being one of the 1 in ten people in the united states who take prozac would you go online and talk about your experience no it would be a private issue not a public one why would someone talk about that stuff online they would speak to there doctors prively. do you talk about your medical issues online if so you have no shame



    the side effects may be rare but by the sheer amount there are and by how many get them you are bound to get a few


    and he list all the evils big pharma does and say i its irrelevant because it is not poison that is true but it is defenetly something to consider because of the topic


    and big pharma giving money to politicians.


    why do you think they do this they do it because there drugs are dangerous so they have to bribe people in order for them to get past the safety rules



    by definition i win debate 


    con said
    Now that we know this, let's look at what poison means.

    Poison- a substance that is capable of causing the illness or death of a living organism when introduced or absorbed.


    prescription medication is a substance that can cause illness or death to an organism


    is not stopping of the heart death to an organism


    or yellow eyes and skin cause of an illness


    con said


    Point 1: My opponent has yet again brought the drugs in the water supply. If my opponent and the readers/judges would be so kind as to refer to my points on this in round one, everyone would see how I debunked these points. Given that fact, my opponent's attempts to keep pushing the argument is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if there is drugs in the water or not, why they're there or who put them there. It doesn't change the fact that the drugs that are in our water have so far proven to be harmless. I've also pointed out that everyone knows and is capable to finding cleaner, safer and healthier alternatives if they so choose. Again, this doesn't prove that prescription drugs are poison.


    no there is not do you know someone with there own well if not then your screwed


    im just saying that the snake and stick is not a good way to advertise your business and thats just one of many red flags



    Return To Top | Posted:
    2019-04-22 19:18:39
    | Speak Round
    dpowell3543dpowell3543 (CON)
    Well first off I'd like to state that I hope everyone had a wonderful Easter this last weekend and I hope you all enjoy this last round of the debate. 

    Section 1: In my opponent's arguments for this round, they asked why someone would name their drugs after something that meant poison. Well the drugs aren't name pharmacy and last I checked, prescription didn't mean poison. In fact, let's both double check. Shall we?

    Prescription: an instruction written by a medical practitioner that authorizes a patient to be provided a medicine or treatment.

    Nope. No poison in there. So my opponent's first point is irrelevant. Especially if they're still referring to pharmakeai.

    Section 2: My opponent yet again brings up the possible drugs in the water supply argument. Though I have already debunked this twice, once more can't hurt. If  there really are drugs in the water, then obviously they weren't put there to harm others. This is easily proven by the fact that so far, no one has been affected by any of these supposed drugs. Therefore, the notion of the government "poisoning" our water is nothing more than a conspiracy theory. Those make good debate topics, but don't serve well as argument supporters. 

    Section 3: My opponent claimed that I will not be able to find evidence of people suffering from side effects online because they don't share their information. That could be true. So now I must ask my opponent how they know that people suffer from side effects at all. This works both ways. In order to properly prove their point, my opponent must also look up the very statistics I tried to look up. Since they also can't find them, they made their own point irrelevant with this one claim. They also posed the question that if I were to take Prozac and became one of the people who get yellow eyes (assuming people actually do experience this) if I would go online and tell people. My opponent automatically assumed no. Which is partially true. But what they don't account for is the doctor. I would go tell my doctor, and then my information will be turned into a statistic and then be placed in a nation or international census. The fact that neither of us can find these censuses just goes to show that these side effects almost never happen at all. Another good point. We live in the age of social media. Everyone talks about everything. So yeah, I'm pretty sure there would be quite a few people who would talk about their side effects online and have no problems. Especially if they're writing a review for the medication in question. Still, none of this proves that prescription medication is poison.

    Section 4: My opponent claims that since prescription medication has so many side effects, everyone will experience at least a few. This isn't true. If this was, no one would bother use prescription medication at all unless the absolutely had to. But this isn't the case. The amount of side effects is also irrelevant to the topic.

    Section 5: My opponent claimed that I listed all the bad things that big pharma has done and that they should be considered for the topic. Well first off, no. I never listed any of the "evil" things that big pharma has done. Why would I? Also, what big pharma does outside of medicine is irrelevant to the topic. What is relevant is the fact that they're not trying to poison everyone.

    Section 6: My opponent claims that big pharma donating money is actually them bribing them to hide the fact that their medication is dangerous. This is absurd. Why? Well if this was true, there would be a lot more than just politicians getting money from the company. Big pharma, like every other major company is free to donate to politicians.  This is not wrong and as I have stated before, it doesn't prove that prescription medication is poison. Therefore, this point is still irrelevant.

    Section 6: Yet again, my opponent brings up the definition of poison I provided. This has led me to believe they didn't read my rebuttal to that in the last round where I redefined it to help them understand. Since prescription medication wasn't intentionally created to kill people or make people sick, it cannot be poison. So the point their attempting to make is irrelevant. They also tried to claim that they win this debate by definition. Well this can easily be debunked. In order for them to do that, the definition of prescription drugs and poison should match, or at least be close to matching. This is unlikely.

    Section 7: Finally my opponent has provide an actual rebuttal rather than the same exact argument. They attempted to rebut my claim that there are many alternatives to tap water and asked if I knew anyone with a well. Well first off, a well isn't the only alternative. But yes, I did know someone with a well. My grandma used to have well on her property. I say used to because she passed and the government took her house away. Next, let's look at some of the alternatives to tap water. Before I go into that though, I would like to revisit a point I made earlier in the debate. Everyone is perfectly capable of filtering out the tap water themselves, without any chemicals. So no one needs to find alternatives, but they can. Anyway. On to what was promised. Here are some perfectly healthy alternatives to tap water:
    *cactus water
    *alkaline water
    *caffeine water
    *coconut water
    *distilled water
    *mineral water
    *diamond water
    *maple water
    *and of course pure, unpolluted, spring water.

    So my opponent's claim that there are no alternatives to tap water is irrelevant and flat out false.

    https://www.mensjournal.com/food-drink/eight-alternatives-tap-water/maple-water/

    Section 8: My opponent yet again brings up the snakes. I have already proven this to be irrelevant and harmless. It shouldn't really raise any red flags to anyone other than a conspiracy theorist. Either way. It still doesn't prove that prescription medication is poison.

    Well this concludes our debate, so here's my closing argument. As the readers/judges will have read. I have debunked all of my opponent's arguments and proved that prescription medication is not poison. With that being said. I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate and I would also like to thank the readers for taking the time to read and judge. I hope everyone enjoyed. Have a wonderful day.



    Return To Top | Posted:
    2019-04-22 20:17:29
    | Speak Round


    View As PDF

    Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

    You need to be logged in to be able to comment
    adminadmin
    Fun fact - I once lived on a house that had a spring and a pump. We rarely turned it on because it was cheaper to get piped water than the cost of the power to keep the pump running for any length of time.
    Posted 2019-04-28 07:27:35
    dpowell3543dpowell3543
    To all readers and my opponent: I apologize for the change in font during the last round. I don't know how it happened, but after I pressed enter to start the next section, everything went italicized. I was unable to change it back to normal. I hope it doesn't bother anyone.
    Posted 2019-04-23 18:07:00
    dpowell3543dpowell3543
    To all readers and my opponent: I apologize for the change in font during the last round. I don't know how it happened, but after I pressed enter to start the next section, everything went italicized. I was unable to change it back to normal. I hope it doesn't bother anyone.
    Posted 2019-04-22 20:19:29
    The judging period on this debate is over

    Previous Judgments

    2019-04-26 03:11:52
    jgestiotJudge: jgestiot
    Win awarded to: dpowell3543
    Reasoning:
    Crossed has failed to make his point about prescription medication being poison. Going off in tangents about something totally unrelated to the debate topic (drugs put into the water) was unhelpful and it is totally false that drugs like atenolol are put in water or that fluoride can cause people to become stupid. Crossed has definitely not helped his case by flooding the debate with multiple areas of information that fail to tie in to support the proposition.

    Feedback:
    The medical definition of poison is "Any substance that can cause severe organ damage or death if ingested, breathed in, injected into the body or absorbed through the skin". The primary purpose of medication is to do the opposite. All medications have side effects and sometimes a toxic effect but the side effects are very small compared to the therapeutic effect of the medication. It is worth noting that in a lot of cases, the patient does not have the choice because not taking the medication means death.
    1 user rated this judgement as good
    1 user rated this judgement as constructive
    0 comments on this judgement

    Rules of the debate

    • Text debate
    • Individual debate
    • 3 rounds
    • 8000 characters per round
    • No reply speeches
    • No cross-examination
    • Permissive Judging Standard (notes)
    • Forfeiting rounds means forfeiting the debate
    • Images allowed
    • HTML formatting allowed
    • Rated debate
    • Time to post: 3 days
    • Time to vote: 2 weeks
    • Time to prepare: None
    *No Wikipedia