EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum
Views:
161

wormwood cures Malaria

(Hidden) (PRO)
(Hidden) (CON)

Cross-Examination In Progress

The chair calls upon all sides to engage in cross-examination

Time remaining for cross-examination: 2020-02-20 10:37:16

The Debate So Far

PRO
I will be taking the majority of my information from this video thank you for taking.This video was posted by France 24 it is a YouTube channel with around a million subscriber.The reason why this France video is talking about sweet wormwood is because it has been banned in France because big pharma is afraid people would heal themselfs with wormwood and they lie and say there is side effects when none exist.The only reason why it is illegal is from big pharma bribing


This source is very reliable


"France 24 is an international news and current affairs
television channel based in Paris. The channel is owned by the French
Government and was launched in 2006."
https://wwitv.com/tv_channels/b2743.htm





At 11:10 through 11:52

A famous explorer got malaria he ate sweet wormwood and it killed 98 percent of the disease. Later the last 2 percent showed up. He started to take sweet wormwood as a herbal tea.In 24 hours he was feeling better. In 48 hours he was completely cured from the disease.Never has another malaria attack in his life

11:52 through 12:00
The famous explored recounts his experience in a book that sold 400 thousand copies.


21:20 22:00

A native recounts how sweet wormwood cured him of malaria.He took drugs to no success.But a friend offered him a plant and by the 7th day he was cured of the disease.


22:00 to 23:00
he gets a masters  degree in France to pursue research on the plant.But when he tried to share it.The higher ups got afraid because all there funding comes from big pharma











" malaria
incidence among almost 300 workers drinking the tea, and followed up
with the randomized controlled trial demonstrating the tea’s
effectiveness. Today, workers like Peter Osire, an irrigation
supervisor, tell me it has been years since they had a fever."

a farm started growing the tea because 1500 of his workers were getting malaria.They got cured
https://slate.com/technology/2013/04/wormwood-tea-to-treat-malaria-the-who-is-opposed-to-an-effective-preventive-medicine.html




Return To Top | Posted:
2020-02-13 09:51:58
CON
I'd like to start by thanking my opponent for this challenge, I look forward to it. 

So first off, I'd like to point out that my opponent's claims are very faulty. The first one is a news source, that doesn't really support their claim as it's full of holes and based entirely on hearsay instead of scientific fact and evidence. It's also full of holes, which we will discuss shortly. The other is a terrible site to use. It's known for being very biased and opinion based. Again, this proves nothing. I've also read through myself during my research and already ruled it out as an invalid source. Given this info, let's discuss the holes in my opponent's first argument. From what we can all see, the people in the video discuss how they started taking wormwood and the symptoms disappeared. This does not mean that the disease has been cured, it means it's being treated. There's a slight difference. My opponent seems to have forgotten that just because you're no longer experiencing the side effects doesn't mean that the disease is gone. The next issue with my opponent's argument is the claim that wormwood has no side effects. Well it does. It has a lot of serious side effects. This ranges from allergic reactions to worsening preexisting issues in the victim. We'll see this in the link I shall provide down below. Given this, the burden of proof still lies solely with my opponent. They are responsible to find substantial scientific evidence that wormwood can and has, cured malaria in a human being. I wish them luck. Again, I'd like to thank my opponent for the challenge and I look forward to reading their next arguments.

https://www.rxlist.com/wormwood/supplements.htm








Return To Top | Posted:
2020-02-14 02:14:12
Cross-Examination
: In the next round, please provide a scientific study, or other scientific proof that wormwood can cure malaria.
: Dpowell3543 France 24 is a tv news channle in france it is like msnbc or abc.You can find articles saying fox news is fake news.Fox news is not fake news so Finding articles against it is pointless.Secondly The second person cured by it is a doctor.Secondly the last article where the farm was treating and curing the 300 people from maleria with wormwood.Thy were cured in a heavily controlled trail.supervised by peter osire.
: There are no side effects.Those are lies pushed by big pharma.My video explainst that pretty well.If that is not enough here is an article about big pharma conspiracy against tumeric. https://www.doctorshealthpress.com/general-health-articles/natural-remedies/turmeric

Return To Top
PRO
The source is not biased.The source is owned by he french goverment.So it is reliable according to what i believe your standard of reliability.The people cured are reliable to.The first guy was mainstream enough to sell a book with 400k copies.The second guy was a doctor.This is not some tiny organization making this claim.The second article.The people were cured in a heavily controlled trail.This article meets my standard of reliability.You have given no reason to question it it.Again the supposed sweet wormwood  side effects are made up by big pharma.According to the video

Return To Top | Posted:
2020-02-20 08:15:07
CON
Hello everyone. Welcome to the second round of this debate. I'd like to start by debunking my opponent's cross examination. The first point they made, was France 24 is a news source and that it's not "fake news". I'd like to point out that I never said that it was fake news, I just said that it wasn't a credible enough source because it doesn't contain any form of proof outside of hearsay. Which brings me to the next point. My opponent named at least two individuals and one group who supposedly used wormwood to cure malaria. Again, there is no proof. My opponent is just expecting all of us to believe them because they said so, this is a logical fallacy. My opponent's next point is a completely asinine claim. They, yet again, tried to claim that wormwood has no side effects, despite the fact I provided scientific evidence to the contrary that was comprised of studies. They attempt to claim that they're just "lies" spread by big pharma, but that's just ludicrous. Yet again, something they have absolutely no proof that supports their claims. They also provide a source that has nothing to do with this debate at all, but is also very unreliable, as it is clearly biased. My opponent claims that, since the source is owned by the French government, it's reliable. That's not how that works. As I specifically stated, it has to be scientific. As for the people claiming that it cures Malaria. My opponent has yet again forgotten the fact that just because the symptoms disappear, doesn't meant the disease has as well. They can claim that wormwood cured their malaria all they want, but that's not proof. If my opponent wants them to be liable sources, they must 
A. prove that those individuals even had malaria to begin with and
B. prove that they no longer have the disease. 
These are things my opponent simply won't be able to do. Without any actual, scientific evidence, my opponent's arguments are empty and invalid. Operating entirely on scripted rumor.

Return To Top | Posted:
2020-02-20 10:37:16
You need to be logged in to be able to comment
dpowell3543dpowell3543
I'd like to apologize to the readers and my opponent. I know my arguments seem to be a bit lacking. I actually had a lot to say, but ended up having very little room. So I summarized my arguments as best I could. I hope everyone can look past this.
Posted 2020-02-14 02:15:25

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 3 rounds
  • 2000 characters per round
  • No reply speeches
  • Uses cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds means forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Rated debate
  • Time to post: 5 days
  • Time to vote: 2 weeks
  • Time to prepare: None
  • Time for cross-examination: 2 days