germ theory is a fraud (4)

To start, I'd like to note that Pro hasn't responded to my burdens analysis. He's challenging my definition of the germ theory of disease (poorly), but not the associated burdens. So, Pro has to show that there is no reliable support for the theory at all, and he has to show that any support that has come out is not just wrong, but was published with the intention to deceive others. So far, he's done neither. He's also completely dropped my opening argument. I'll start with Pro's R1. Pro starts by citing Antoine Bechamp, who also claimed that "something like a bacterium can change into a yeast that can turn into a fungus that can turn into a mold", which was clearly ridiculous, even at the time he said it.[12] The quote Pro provides is only slightly less absurd, as it requires some understanding of how these organisms come to be in these locations. This requires him to explain a) how these organisms come to be in the body, b) how the body interfaces with these organisms and tells them where to go, c) how the organisms are beneficial in any way, and d) why their virulence factors don't outweigh any potential benefit. He hasn't done so yet. Pro says that "unnatural foods" might be the cause of many diseases, but he doesn't support this, merely stating it as an assertion. Similarly, all of Pro's assertions that the common cold is solely a symptom of food allergy and that the diseases he mentions are caused by pesticides and fungicides are entirely unsupported. But even if all of this is true, voters should still vote Con because that doesn't disprove the actual germ theory. Onto R2. Pro doesn't seem to understand how sourcing works. He sources quite a bit in this round, including one rather long video that no voter is likely to watch, which isn't connected to any of his arguments. For those that are connected, he depends entirely on voters to expand his arguments by reading his links. Voters shouldn't do this because there is such a thing as a character limit and Pro chose not to use it to the fullest, instead treating his sources as his argument. But let's look at those assertions. To start, Pro claims that I've misinterpreted what germ theory is. He hasn't said how my definition was wrong, and frankly, his definitions are just baffling. "Germ theory states that micro-organisms are the CAUSE of disease," The word "the" is very important. Pro's view seems to be that germ theory requires that all disease results from germs, but he doesn't explain why we should buy this view of germ theory. Every source I can find makes clear that germ theory states that microorganisms are A cause of disease: "Germ theory states that specific microscopic organisms are the cause of SPECIFIC diseases."[13] "Germ theory, in medicine, the theory that CERTAIN diseases are caused by the invasion of the body by microorganisms, organisms too small to be seen except through a microscope."[14] Note the words I've capitalized. None of them say "all." "AND that these micro-organisms come from EXTERIOR sources." Again, this doesn't appear anywhere in those definitions. The word "exterior" doesn't exist. Invading does, but an organism that's already in one tissue in the body can invade other tissues, as is the case with Pro's own exame of gut microbes. There's no reason invasive microorganisms need to come from exterior sources, though that is often the case " in fact, all the organisms I cited in R1 do. This places the burden squarely on Pro " he has not prove that NO diseases are caused by microorganisms. Admittedly, Pro's source disagrees, but Pro's source comes from the College of Practical Homeopathy, which has a vested interest in disproving germ theory to advance their views and recruit more students. They've clearly redefined it to suit their own interests and draw people like Pro to their side. Their definition also stands alone without support. The rest of this round is just vague assertions without any reason behind it. Pro doesn't explain how germs are the result of disease, nor how they're a defense mechanism, relying solely on his source to explain. That source doesn't support this with any data. Nor does Pro's source explain why specific microorganisms always appear in the same context and with virulence factors capable of causing disease, both points I made in R1 that he's dropped. The house fire example is just absurd. Firemen are clearly weilding huge hoses that fire water to put out flames. That's not akin to having organisms specifically producing virulence factors that contribute to a given disease. Pro hasn't explained how an organism like Borrelia is at all beneficial, or how the body creates them and sends them to the site. To employ a better version of Pro's analogy, it would be akin to finding a serial arsonist with gobs of incendiary materials on the site and assuming that he had nothing to do with the fire. 12. http://bit.ly... 13. http://bit.ly... 14. http://bit.ly...