CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Question about thousandin1
I have been debating thousandin1 in this debate about the chemistry behind contraception and hormones in general.
I am new and do not know the various personalities of established members. I am not sure if he is trolling me or is just too proud and stubborn to admit he is wrong.
His latest argument is telling me to list an example that is both artificial and natural in order to prove my point.
If he is a regular troll, then I have been trolled very hard and been made a fool.
If he is just too proud, then at least I haven't been trolled.
I am talking about these specific cases and asking other established members for information on your general disposition. Of course you can be both at a certain point in time.
He was right. You misused words. Since he was right, he isn't stubborn or a troll. Therefore, you presented a false dichotomy. You also presented a false dichotomy in the other debate. Claiming that either food is widely available or kids go hungry is not accurate. You both agreed in one way or another that not having money causes problems getting food, not the availability of food. Availability only means that if you have money you can get food. Availability has nothing to do with whether or not you actually eat.
You both agreed in one way or another that not having money causes problems getting food, not the availability of food. Availability only means that if you have money you can get food. Availability has nothing to do with whether or not you actually eat.
I already showed food is not widely available. Read the articles that I cite. Not every region receives the same volume of food in their food pantries. Even with the addition of private food banks, certain regions still do not have enough food to feed everyone. As I already said to him, I say to you, surplus food production does not mean universal food availability.
He was right. You misused words. Since he was right, he isn't stubborn or a troll. Therefore, you presented a false dichotomy. You also presented a false dichotomy in the other debate.
I think you are confusing debate format with creator intention. The debate format is a dichotomy. There is no multiple choice tally format. If there was, then every debate would probably provide an "other" option.
Why do people always try to change the subject? I think I was fairly clear in the description.
I already showed food is not widely available. Read the articles that I cite.
Everything I saw you write didn't say anything like that, I will go back and check.
Not every region receives the same volume of food in their food pantries.
This statement is odd. I am not sure what you mean by food pantries. If you are talking about the food the region has to hand out to the poor, then you are still confused. As long as there are restaurants in the area that have food for sale there is food available.
Even with the addition of private food banks, certain regions still do not have enough food to feed everyone.
Ok, I haven't heard of this situation. This is the situation that would accurately describe a lack of available food. I will have to go back and check your sources.
As I already said to him, I say to you, surplus food production does not mean universal food availability.
Regardless, hungry people does not mean there isn't food available. You are right, but I am not claiming that surplus food is the reason why I believe there is enough food.
I think you are confusing debate format with creator intention.
Except the debate description presents the false dichotomy as well. Nowhere did you include the possibility that you might be wrong. Except of course until you added the edit.
Why do people always try to change the subject? I think I was fairly clear in the description.
The description that you had to edit. I am not sure how the subject got changed. You claimed to not have made a false dichotomy. You did make one.
Yeah. I was just refuting his argument. I know it is not a reflection of yours. I also brought up the issue of accessibility as the most factor, since that accounts for availability as well as cost, but he basically just ignored it or tried to argue semantics.
Except the debate description presents the false dichotomy as well. Nowhere did you include the possibility that you might be wrong. Except of course until you added the edit.
Yeah. It does read like a false dichotomy. You have to remember the description is a reflection of the choices given. Just because it reads like it does not imply intention or take away from the original debate. This is why I brought up fallacy fallacy and then edited it out in my "EDIT: EDIT:". It felt like too much explanation and falling for the change of subject.
You have to remember the description is a reflection of the choices given.
Last post you said the opposite.
Just because it reads like it does not imply intention or take away from the original debate.
It is true that it does not imply intention, but it most certainly does take away from the debate. You have not considered the possibility of you being wrong, and you accuse someone else of being stubborn for the same thing.
Which part? The "pretty clear description"? I meant in regards to the intention of the debate. Suggesting a false dichotomy only takes away from the original topic. All it does is change the subject. I added the "Other reasons" and it doesn't affect the arguments already made regarding the specific situation. I just wanted people's opinions. Making fallacy claims is also a valid opinion. I thought it was clear my intention was other people's opinion on thousandin1.
You have not considered the possibility of you being wrong, and you accuse someone else of being stubborn for the same thing.
I could certainly be wrong about a lot of things. Notice how my lack of "Other reasons" choice did not prevent you from claiming I might be wrong? How does that take away from the debate?
Which part? The "pretty clear description"? I meant in regards to the intention of the debate.
Yes, you said that you were clear enough in your description, which indicates that you are able to overcome the 2 options for the columns then you wrote that because of only having 2 columns you couldn't elaborate properly in the debate description.
Making fallacy claims is also a valid opinion.
Oh, it is refreshing to see you get this right. Good job.
I could certainly be wrong about a lot of things. Notice how my lack of "Other reasons" choice did not prevent you from claiming I might be wrong? How does that take away from the debate?
I see a lot of people get stuck on little things and I could totally see them not giving you an accurate response, but since you are right, I will retract the part about it taking away from the debate.
This opinion debate is IMO very rude and crosses a social taboo that is not good for this site. Effectively we are all setting together and listening to negative statements being directed at one of us. All the while the person being disparaged is setting right here among us. Since I would hope that none of us would be so rude and unkind in person, I wish we could avoid it here as well.
This opinion debate is IMO very rude and crosses a social taboo that is not good for this site. Effectively we are all setting together and listening to negative statements being directed at one of us. All the while the person being disparaged is setting right here among us. Since I would hope that none of us would be so rude and unkind in person, I wish we could avoid it here as well.
This debate is neither rude or a social taboo, because a precedent was set here by me shortly after I came to this site. I ask the community if it was okay to target an individual in a debate.
At least you approached the activity with some caution by asking for opinions of others. Kinda & TERMINATOR were not the most congenial of members, but I still would prefer face to face (so to speak) confrontation.
From what I can tell, people on this site regularly attack one another in debates. This is the fifth such specific member opinion topic I have seen since I joined this site. This is the first time I have seen you speak up about the rudeness of such topics. Is there a specific reason this debate seems so much more rude than the rest?
I believe my awareness finally peaked with your attack on thousandin1.
Not intending to personally single out you. That would kind of be taking away from my own point.
It just seems too personal and hurtful. I know if I was attacked personally rather than on my debate opinions, by several others at once, I would loose the fun of being on this site.
In your defense, that was a very long and detailed debate on the hormones thing. I can see that you both put tremendous effort into tor arguments and how that would be frustrating. Just maybe should have been all left in that debate. Ya know?
"Chemical contraceptives are hormonal contraceptives"
In the hormone abortion debate you made a false statement, so everything after that can't be confirmed as true from you. And, since you gave no sources there is no reason to believe you are right.
Saying chemical contraceptives are hormonal contraceptives is like saying rectangles are squares. All squares are rectangles, so your statement would be backwards. All hormonal contraceptives are chemical contraceptives, but not all chemical contraceptives are hormonal.
In the hormone abortion debate you made a false statement, so everything after that can't be confirmed as true from you. And, since you gave no sources there is no reason to believe you are right.
I would argue it was a common knowledge statement simply because it was addressed directly to thousandin1 who appeared to be informed on the subject from the previous comments (technical terms and processes). Someone also stated that he works with doctors. "Agreed. Working for thos doctors has taught you a lot. ."
I should have probably assumed the worst and included a source. That was my mistake. If you go down the tree, I continue to not cite sources because all my comments were addressing his specific examples. I just assumed basic knowledge of examples he brings up personally.
It was my last(?) comment that I addressed his lack of knowledge about the subjects involved and asked for a reason for all these false claims. My fault for not realizing it sooner.
I should have probably assumed the worst and included a source.
You should have because you would find out you are wrong.
I just assumed basic knowledge of examples he brings up personally.
There wasn't a bit of basic knowledge in that whole tree of arguments. I had to look up everything you guys were discussing.
It was my last(?) comment that I addressed his lack of knowledge about the subjects involved and asked for a reason for all these false claims. My fault for not realizing it sooner.
Please address my concern. According to you there are hormone contraceptives that are not chemical contraceptives. Can you name one?
There wasn't a bit of basic knowledge in that whole tree of arguments. I had to look up everything you guys were discussing.
A discussion between two electrical engineers regarding basic IC does not require sources. The fact that I assumed he was knowledgeable through his previous comments justifies common knowledge.
Please address my concern. According to you there are hormone contraceptives that are not chemical contraceptives. Can you name one?
No. I used "chemical contraceptives" in place of "hormone contraceptives" because they are equivalent in most cases. I mentioned types like spermicidal contraceptives as the exception to the rule. This was all in the first couple of comments.
Just to quote him: ""Hormonal contraception" refers specifically to contraceptive methods that use hormones exclusively.
But hormonal contraceptives do not have any of the affects that you assert. It's important to remember the scope of the debate; what you've done here is akin to arguing against someones claims regarding behavior patterns in sexually reproducing species by claiming no such behaviors can be observed in species who reproduce asexually.
Put more simply:
This debate is about hormonal contraceptives.
Hormonal contraceptives are a subset of chemical contraceptives.
Some chemical contraceptives cause the effects you note.
Hormonal contraceptives do not."
The most common form of hormonal contraception is the birth control pill which uses synthetic agonists (progestin is one of them) and thins the uterine lining. Basically refutes his statement.
A discussion between two electrical engineers regarding basic IC does not require sources. The fact that I assumed he was knowledgeable through his previous comments justifies common knowledge.
When the hell did hormones become a part of basic IC?
No. I used "chemical contraceptives" in place of "hormone contraceptives" because they are equivalent in most cases.
No, you said that "Chemical contraceptives are hormonal contraceptives.". Plus, the fact that you say most cases indicates that I am right. The point is that you are saying that rectangles are squares. His whole argument hinged on sticking to hormonal contraceptives because that is the debate scope. You throwing out a different terminology shows that you don't care about the scope of the debate.
When the hell did hormones become a part of basic IC?
Analogy about common knowledge relativity.
No, you said that "Chemical contraceptives are hormonal contraceptives.". Plus, the fact that you say most cases indicates that I am right. The point is that you are saying that rectangles are squares. His whole argument hinged on sticking to hormonal contraceptives because that is the debate scope. You throwing out a different terminology shows that you don't care about the scope of the debate.
You are making the same point he is. There is no distinction. Arguing semantics works sometimes if the argument hinges on the meaning of the words.
Hormone contraception like the birth control pill thins the uterine lining. I called it a chemical contraceptive. That does not change the fact that whatever you call it, it still thins the uterine lining which lowers implantation rates. He claimed hormone contraceptives do not do this and only non-hormone contraception does this. I even told him about the common birth control pill which contains the hormones estradiol and progestin. The most common type of hormone contraception thins uterine lining so the whole argument over semantics was just another change of subject that did nothing for the actual debate. When the hormone vs chemical contraceptive distinction didn't pan out, he argued about the definition of hormone, then agonist, then analogue, and so on.
I already covered all this. Read the tree. I am not going to regurgitate another point that is already covered in the tree.
An analogy made no sense. The only way this stuff is common knowledge is if you are both biologists. If you are both biologists you would just say biologists discussing hormones should be common knowledge. Are you both biologists?
You are making the same point he is.
That's because you have actually failed to show he is wrong. Shocking, right.
There is no distinction. Arguing semantics works sometimes if the argument hinges on the meaning of the words.
The debate specifically calls out the special use of the word. The meaning of the words was very much a part of the argument.
Hormone contraception like the birth control pill thins the uterine lining.
I can't find that. "Insufficient evidence exists on whether changes in the endometrium could actually prevent implantation."
I called it a chemical contraceptive.
So did he, because squares are also rectangles.
That does not change the fact that whatever you call it
The fact that you can't figure out what he was calling it by now is a little troubling.
it still thins the uterine lining which lowers implantation rates.
I can't find anything that says the uterine lining gets thinned.
He claimed hormone contraceptives do not do this and only non-hormone contraception does this.
That's where you provide the source of information that shows that there is a hormonal treatment that thins the uterine wall.
I even told him about the common birth control pill which contains the hormones estradiol and progestin.
Are those known to thin the uterine wall?
The most common type of hormone contraception thins uterine lining
Source?
When the hormone vs chemical contraceptive distinction didn't pan out, he argued about the definition of hormone, then agonist, then analogue, and so on.
You never showed how his claim that hormone treatments don't thin the uterine wall was false.
The only way this stuff is common knowledge is if you are both biologists. If you are both biologists you would just say biologists discussing hormones should be common knowledge. Are you both biologists?
Hormones are a fairly basic concept in biology. Assuming someone has taken college biology, it would be enough to discuss it as common knowledge. Considering his jargon and "work with doctors", I was expecting a lot more stuff as common knowledge.
At least with our discussion, you explicitly state you need sources instead of making claims to suggest knowledge on the subject. This is why I provide a lot more links with you than him.
That's because you have actually failed to show he is wrong. Shocking, right.
The debate specifically calls out the special use of the word. The meaning of the words was very much a part of the argument.
So did he, because squares are also rectangles.
I also noted the exception of spermicidal contraceptives which are chemical but not hormonal. And certain types of barrier contraceptives that do release hormones. That is basically excluding all rectangles where length does not equal width. If I did not mention the exceptions, then I would be talking about all rectangles. I excluded the exceptions, so I was referring to square rectangles. The same thing as a square.
Through this distinction, he claims hormone contraceptives do not while chemical contraceptives do thin uterine lining. When, in fact, hormones are the only way to thin uterine lining unless if you want to physically harm the individual.
"The endometrium consists of a single layer of columnar epithelium resting on the stroma, a layer of connective tissue that varies in thickness according to hormonal influences."
He claimed "No. Hormonal contraceptives are a subset of chemical contraceptives. If this statement was true, then you could classify Mifepristone (ru486) as a hormonal contraceptive, and it is not. At all."
I can't find that. "Insufficient evidence exists on whether changes in the endometrium could actually prevent implantation."
Birth control pills are prescribed to women who need their uterine thinned. That is usually the case for women who experience heavy bleeding (excessive bleeding is from thick uterine lining) or possibly even surgery prep. The point is, they are prescribed for the sole purpose of thinning the endometrium (uterine lining).
"Some birth control pills, called mini-pills, contain only progestin. These pills do not always suppress ovulation, but make the cervical mucus thick and unwelcoming to sperm, preventing entry to the uterus. They also thin the endometrial lining, making it less receptive to a fertilized egg."
The source you provided on "The pill". It indicates that it contains progestogen and estrogen agonists. I have shown above that progestin, an progestogen agonist, is specifically prescribed to thin the lining.
Hormones are a fairly basic concept in biology. Assuming someone has taken college biology, it would be enough to discuss it as common knowledge. Considering his jargon and "work with doctors", I was expecting a lot more stuff as common knowledge.
You think every college biology course covers the ins and outs of progestogens?
I also noted the exception of spermicidal contraceptives which are chemical but not hormonal.
That's not an exception, that's how the terms work.
If I did not mention the exceptions, then I would be talking about all rectangles.
If you talk about all squares, but call them rectangles with the exception of unequal length sides you don't make sense. That's what you did.
I excluded the exceptions, so I was referring to square rectangles. The same thing as a square.
Then call it a square. Why is that so hard?
Through this distinction, he claims hormone contraceptives do not while chemical contraceptives do thin uterine lining.
No, he was saying that only non hormone contraceptives can cause it.
When, in fact, hormones are the only way to thin uterine lining unless if you want to physically harm the individual.
The article you gave says that it is a lack of hormones that causes thinning:
"If there is inadequate stimulation of the lining, due to lack of hormones"
Mifepristone is a hormone as most hormone agonists are classified as such.
Except that it is an antagonist and you haven't demonstrated what those are classified as. It is specifically referred to as a steroid not a hormone, so I don't know where you are getting this classification.
Neither one of your links opened for me. I have no idea if the title is misleading.
Birth control pills are prescribed to women who need their uterine thinned.
The article I posted did not include those effects. The article I gave you says it is for making the egg not meet sperm so that fertilization doesn't occur.
"Some birth control pills, called mini-pills, contain only progestin. These pills do not always suppress ovulation, but make the cervical mucus thick and unwelcoming to sperm, preventing entry to the uterus. They also thin the endometrial lining, making it less receptive to a fertilized egg."
FINALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Geez, what took you so long? You found a source that demonstrates your point. The problem here is that you assume that that one little line in that article constitutes common knowledge. Why? This is how you win arguments. If he says hormonal contraceptives don't do something, you provide a source that says they do it, not argue over what is considered chemical contraceptives.
The source you provided on "The pill". It indicates that it contains progestogen and estrogen agonists. I have shown above that progestin, an progestogen agonist, is specifically prescribed to thin the lining.
Actually, you did not show that those are prescribed to thin the lining. If you ignore everything else the pill is prescribed to do you are left with thinning the lining. It is considered a side effect and is added on after describing what the pill is really meant to do. The pill is specifically prescribed to block sperm from getting to the egg.
My basic argument was the same. It was just one word that only made a minor difference. The difference was sort of justified because we were focusing specifically on non-barrier, non-spermicidal contraceptives. He never brought up the other categories, I did.
It felt like one of those attempts to change the topic rather than reply to my actual argument. This was the main reason why I claimed there was no distinction. Well, the fact that he got the categories wrong after calling me out on the semantics did not help.
Yes, using incorrect terminology doesn't make your base argument change.
It was just one word that only made a minor difference.
You don't seem to know what the word minor means either. You got yourself massively sidetracked for a while with that one word.
He never brought up the other categories, I did.
I don't know why you are patting yourself on the back for bringing up unrelated categories.
It felt like one of those attempts to change the topic rather than reply to my actual argument.
I agree, and seeing as you are the one guilty of doing it, it appeared like you were trying to derail his argument by using incorrect terms.
Hopefully that works.
Link doesn't work, and I have already pointed out to you how RU486 is not a hormone contraceptive.
Edit: Nevermind, I got it to work. I will concede that someone calls it a hormone, but based on people trying to technically explain it appears not to actually be a hormone. You did have to go pretty far to find anyone who called it that. A UK healthcare site is not exactly official.
Scroll down to "Treatment of irregular periods" and keep reading about prescriptive uses unrelated to birth control.
Congratulations. I tell you that if you eliminate all of the primary uses of the pill that you get the wall thinning, and you come back with the secondary uses of the pill.
"Prolonged use of birth control pills will also result in a thin uterine lining."
Are you trying to argue the effects of prolonged use of a daily pill are the primary reasons to prescribe the pill?
You don't seem to know what the word minor means either. You got yourself massively sidetracked for a while with that one word.
I got sidetracked because he refused to acknowledge the common definition. I fall for change of subject tactics a lot.
Yes, using incorrect terminology doesn't make your base argument change.
I don't know why you are patting yourself on the back for bringing up unrelated categories.
That was how I limited our discussion to just hormonal contraception. I might have done it in a weird roundabout way. The one word did not change my argument in this case because it was true for hormonal and non-hormonal chemical contraceptives. It didn't matter in this specific case.
Congratulations. I tell you that if you eliminate all of the primary uses of the pill that you get the wall thinning, and you come back with the secondary uses of the pill.
It is not a secondary use. If the prescription is specifically to treat a certain condition, then it would be considered primary use. You are viewing it as a side effect even though it is the primary effect for the prescription.
You did have to go pretty far to find anyone who called it that. A UK healthcare site is not exactly official.
That is because RU-486 is not exactly a commonly studied exogenous hormone.
"hormone replacement therapy ... or low-dose cyproterone acetate ... compared with non-users. There was a significantly increased risk of meningioma among male users of androgen analogues ... and among users of high-dose CPA...
Our results do not support a role for exogenous hormone use by females in meningioma development."
"Epidemiologic studies have suggested a role for hormones in the etiology of breast cancer. Evidence includes reproductive history, estrogen levels, obesity, exogenous estrogen use...
There is conflicting evidence on the potential actions of phytoestrogens, and it appears in some studies that their estrogen agonist or antagonist activity..."
There are plenty of studies on other administered external analogues, agonists, and antagoinsts that just group all them all together under exogenous hormones. Agonism or antagonism is used to describe the relationship of the exogenous hormone to its target receptor. There is no mutual exclusivity between hormone and agonism or antagonism. There are plenty of endogenous hormones that serve as agonists or antagonists that are recognized as hormones as well.
"thousandin1" even named enkaphalins which are endogenous hormones with antagonistic relationships. He was basically claiming that endogenous hormones are hormones but exogenous hormones are not.
T: Find one chemically synthesized analogue that is produced naturally by an endocrine gland.
F: Since you brought up enkephalins earlier; Met-enkephalin and Leu-enkephalin are analogues of one another. There is your one example of endogenous analogues.
T:Yes, exactly. How do you figure that I don't understand what a chemical analogue is? To be fair, I should probably have said 'artificially synthesized' rather than 'chemically synthesized' as endocrine glands do in fact synthesize their hormones chemically.
What endocrine gland produces Mifepristone?
F: So now you are changing your original statement of: "Find one chemically synthesized analogue that is produced naturally by an endocrine gland." to "Find one artificially synthesized analogue that is produced naturally by an endocrine gland."
You want me to find something that is artificial and natural at the same time?
Do you understand why I thought he gave up on the debate and just resorted to trolling?
"Exogenous hormone therapy (HT) is used by millions of women yearly as hormone contraception (HC) or postmenopausal hormone therapy (PHT)."
thousandin1: Further, progestins themselves are not strictly hormones. Progestins are a group of synthetic chemicals...
Again, if you can note an actual hormonal contraceptive- not a synthetic analogue or other chemical agent or hybrid with those- you may have an argument here. Until then, you're offering oranges to support your assertions regarding apples, and that doesn't fly.
I got sidetracked because he refused to acknowledge the common definition. I fall for change of subject tactics a lot.
You are the one who changed the subject though.
That was how I limited our discussion to just hormonal contraception.
I am pretty sure the debate title that only mentioned hormonal contraception did that much better than you. How is expanding the discussion to all chemical contraception limiting the discussion?
The one word did not change my argument in this case because it was true for hormonal and non-hormonal chemical contraceptives.
What it did though was cause you to never actually show that there are hormonal contraceptives that do what you say.
It is not a secondary use. If the prescription is specifically to treat a certain condition, then it would be considered primary use. You are viewing it as a side effect even though it is the primary effect for the prescription.
If 99% of the time a drug is prescribed for one thing, the 1% of the prescriptions doesn't become a primary use.
That is because RU-486 is not exactly a commonly studied exogenous hormone.
No, it is because RU-486 is not a hormone. You failed to provide any reason to think otherwise. From now on, the only evidence I will accept from you is a video with someone in a lab coat saying RU-486 is a hormone. You have had too many chances.
There are plenty of studies on other administered external analogues, agonists, and antagoinsts that just group all them all together under exogenous hormones.
I don't agree with anything you say. I looked up everything you put in this debate and I can't find anyone who agrees with you. Give me someone who says antagonists are hormones.
Do you understand why I thought he gave up on the debate and just resorted to trolling?
Are you talking about the switching of hormone with chemical or the subject in general?
I was just responding to his comments most of the time. He was the one who brought up all the different examples to prove his point.
I am pretty sure the debate title that only mentioned hormonal contraception did that much better than you. How is expanding the discussion to all chemical contraception limiting the discussion?
I was still talking about hormone contraception. He and you are both focusing on the inappropriate term rather than the relevant argument that follows it.
I never said something like "chemical contraceptives cause abortions so hormone contraceptives cause abortions". If I had done that, then I would have been changing the subject and using the term to expand the discussion. I specifically mentioned the common birth control pill. A misnomer does not suggest intent to change the subject, it could just be a misnomer.
At the start, we were both talking about the birth control pill. That is a hormone contraceptive. Although, he was classifying it as non-hormonal because the hormones were exogenous. I do not see how I was changing the subject.
What it did though was cause you to never actually show that there are hormonal contraceptives that do what you say.
What are you talking about? The birth control pill does what I claimed. I even specifically said it was the common birth control pill that does this in one of my first comments.
His counter was that the common birth control pill is not a hormone contraceptive because it uses progestin and not progesterone which is why we were arguing about the definition of hormone for the rest of the tree.
I don't agree with anything you say. I looked up everything you put in this debate and I can't find anyone who agrees with you. Give me someone who says antagonists are hormones.
Look at the scientific studies I cited. All of those classify agonists and antagonists as hormones for hormone therapy of various medical conditions. Just because I couldn't find a scientific study about a rarely studied hormone does not mean it is not a hormone.
Explain how those studies which classify exogenous antagonists and agonists as hormones for hormone therapy do not support my claim that all exogenous antagonists, similar to endogenous antagonists, are in fact hormones (this would include RU-486)?
I was still talking about hormone contraception. He and you are both focusing on the inappropriate term rather than the relevant argument that follows it.
It takes 2 to tango, pal. You can just admit you were wrong and move on, but no, you insist you did nothing wrong even now.
Although, he was classifying it as non-hormonal
Did you ever find out what he meant by hormonal contraception?
I even specifically said
You say a lot of garbage, one source against him might have helped. You saying something is not you showing him something.
Look at the scientific studies I cited.
THEY DON'T SAY IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
All of those classify agonists and antagonists as hormones
No, they don't mention antagonists as hormones.
Just because I couldn't find a scientific study about a rarely studied hormone does not mean it is not a hormone.
It does for you because you like to claim proof for stuff you didn't demonstrate.
Explain how those studies which classify exogenous antagonists
For the millionth time, I have not seen them say antagonists are hormones.
are in fact hormones (this would include RU-486)?
It would, that's why I want someone who says antagonists are hormones. RU-486 is an antagonist, not an agonist.
It takes 2 to tango, pal. You can just admit you were wrong and move on, but no, you insist you did nothing wrong even now.
Read my previous comments in this tree. I already admitted I was wrong to use the misnomer, several times. I am just denying the other mistakes you or thousandin1 claim I committed.
Did you ever find out what he meant by hormonal contraception?
Yes. He defined it as only contraception that uses human derived hormones like progesterone. So, anything that used chemicals not produced by the human body would not be considered hormonal contraception. The example he used was that a contraceptive that uses progesterone would be hormonal and a contraceptive that uses progestin would be non-hormonal.
No, they don't mention antagonists as hormones.
Which part of the quotes did you not understand? They talk about administering various agonists and antagonists for hormone therapy then talk about them as a group under the classification "exogenous hormones".
If you are looking for a quote like "exogenous antagonists are hormones", that won't show up in clinical studies. They are not going to define what a hormone it is common knowledge relative to the audience.
I am not sure what your position is regarding the definition of hormone. It seems like it might be different than thousandin1's. From what I understood of his comments, he limited "hormones" to hormones produced in body, which is just endogenous agonists and antagonists.
Is this your claim as well? It sounds like you also include exogenous agonists as hormones but exclude exogenous antagonists.
In fact, I have no idea if you or thousandin1 recognize endogenous antagonists as hormones either. He and I only discussed the agonistic properties of certain hormones. I can only assume he recognizes endogenous antagonists as hormones because he agreed that many hormones presented with antagonistic behavior during our debate about binding sites.
I give up, this debate is stupid. This entire debate is semantics and irrelevant.
I do love how all of your common knowledge isn't written down anywhere.
I cited almost everything I presented to you. If there is more information required, just ask.
Like I said before, I didn't cite much with thousandin1 due to the way he presented himself in the discussion.
Scientific terminology is different from common usage semantics.
Instead of actually responding to the clinical studies that prove my "common knowledge", you just claimed they did not without mentioning a reason.
Well, the original debate was regarding whether hormonal contraceptives cause abortions, so this debate was relevant there. The only purpose it serves here is to remove one of the "other reasons" that you suggested, that I might be wrong.
I cited almost everything I presented to you. If there is more information required, just ask.
I ask and only get garbage.
Scientific terminology is different from common usage semantics.
You treat them the same though.
Instead of actually responding to the clinical studies that prove my "common knowledge", you just claimed they did not without mentioning a reason.
Over and over again I told you that your links didn't say what you claim they said. You have not presented your common knowledge.
Well, the original debate was regarding whether hormonal contraceptives cause abortions, so this debate was relevant there.
No, the whole debate was hinged on the premise that hormonal contraceptives could be defined. Instead of using a completely worthless term like hormonal contraceptives we should have been discussing the effects of the contraceptives that are ok. The whole debate was worthless.
Just saying no without giving a reason again. And I am the one who gives garbage?
Every time I asked you a question you word something that was completely off topic and didn't even discuss what I was asking for or even say what you said it said. I asked for someone who claims that RU486 is a hormone. You came back with a study that you claimed said RU486 hasn't been studied much, but your study didn't discuss RU486 at all.
Explain your interpretation of the sections I quoted.
Hormone therapy is therapy that involves changing hormone levels the patient has. Not every ingredient is a hormone. The agonists are hormones because they cause actions to occur. Antagonists block actions and are not hormones.
Also. I thought you were done?
Further proof that your reading comprehension is not great.
Every time I asked you a question you word something that was completely off topic and didn't even discuss what I was asking for or even say what you said it said. I asked for someone who claims that RU486 is a hormone. You came back with a study that you claimed said RU486 hasn't been studied much, but your study didn't discuss RU486 at all.
You didn't even read the studies...
They had nothing to do with RU486. I cited studies that identified other more commonly studied antagonists and agonists as exogenous hormones. Since RU486 is an hormone antagonist, by induction it is also an exogenous hormone.
Hormone therapy is therapy that involves changing hormone levels the patient has. Not every ingredient is a hormone. The agonists are hormones because they cause actions to occur. Antagonists block actions and are not hormones.
You got most of it right. Hormone therapy affects receptor activation rates. There are several places along the pathway to block receptor action. Hormone agonists, partial hormone agonists/antagonists, hormone antagonists, and more are all part of a spectrum of chemicals that affect hormone function. Hormone agonists mediate similar responses as the hormone and form similar receptor complexes. Hormone antagonists bind to the same receptors as the hormone and compete or inhibit binding of the hormone and other agonists. Partial agonists/antagonists are agonists in the presence of antagonists and antagonists in the presence of full agonists.
Partial hormone agonists and full hormone antagonists are both used as hormone antagonists in hormone therapy. I am still unclear on your definition. Do you draw the line at full antagonists that exhibit no efficacy at all? So any partial antagonist that presented with even the slightest similar action is still considered a hormone?
If that is indeed your definition, then RU-486 is a hormone.
"No significantly increased risk of meningioma was found among female users of oral contraceptives, hormone replacement therapy, or low-dose cyproterone acetate compared with non-users. There was a significantly increased risk of meningioma among male users of androgen analogues ... and among users of high-dose CPA...
CONCLUSIONS: Our results do not support a role for exogenous hormone use by females in meningioma development."
That groups birth control pill, hormone replacement therapy, CPA (androgen antagonist), and androgen analogues all under exogenous hormones.
How does this not show it? It follows my claim that exogenous hormone antagonists (CPA) and agonists (birth control pill/androgen analogues) all fall under the spectrum of exogenous hormone.
Yeah, the debate was to get you to say that hormonal contraceptives don't cause abortions. I gave up on convincing you of anything.
If you only wanted to argue this, we only have to consider the basic birth control pill. It causes a thinner uterine lining which lowers implantation chances. That is a chance for abortion. Unless if you believe the birth control pill is not a hormone contraceptive like thousandin1. Then I would need to prove that progestin, a progestogen agonist, is an exogenous hormone and therefore the birth control pill is a hormone contraceptive.
"It is estimated that more than 50 million women in the world, including at least 10 million in the United States, use oral contraceptives (OC), an effective and accessible method of contraception. Most OC contain small dosages of estrogens (ethinyl estradiol) and of testosterone-derived progesterone (norethindrone), whereas some contain only progestins (Micronor, Ovrette).
The mechanism of preventing pregnancy is based on the notion that the presence of one pregnancy prevents the onset of another, therefore the administration of hormonal agents secreted during pregnancy (estrogen and progesterone) would suppress ovulation and implantation."
"No significantly increased risk of meningioma was found among female users of oral contraceptives, hormone replacement therapy, or low-dose cyproterone acetate compared with non-users. There was a significantly increased risk of meningioma among male users of androgen analogues ... and among users of high-dose CPA...
CONCLUSIONS: Our results do not support a role for exogenous hormone use by females in meningioma development."
That groups birth control pill, hormone replacement therapy, CPA (androgen antagonist), and androgen analogues all under exogenous hormones.
How does this not show it? It follows my claim that exogenous hormone antagonists (CPA) and agonists (birth control pill/androgen analogues) all fall under the spectrum of exogenous hormone.
Don't those all contain agonists? If they have agonists then they have hormones.
If you only wanted to argue this, we only have to consider the basic birth control pill.
We should have, but nope.
It causes a thinner uterine lining which lowers implantation chances. That is a chance for abortion.
Then we could have discussed if the rarity of that condition makes it insignificant, but nope.
Did you provide a video of someone in a lab coat confirming it?
At least I can tell when you are trolling.
Don't those all contain agonists? If they have agonists then they have hormones.
Almost every antagonist has some agonist function at a different receptor. As we learn more, we have even discovered inverse agonists. Many of the previously classified antagonists are in fact inverse agonists whose receptor complexes actually mediate inhibitory pathways relative to the original hormone. Just like how RU-486 is a partial agonist through corepressor binding of termini on the newly formed receptor Glucocorticoid complex.
Then we could have discussed if the rarity of that condition makes it insignificant, but nope.
What is rare is not the uterine thinning but the chance of failure to prevent ovulation. The endometrium will always be thinned. It is rare for the ovulation to take place. The debate never asked for a great chance of abortion. It only asked whether or not abortion can occur.
As shown by that last Nature article, the purpose of the birth control pill is to prevent ovulation and implantation. That means there is a chance to cause an abortion as long as we define prevention of implantation as an abortion.
Except earlier you showed a study that it only happens after prolonged use.
The prolonged use was referring to a thinner endometrium even after stopping.
So you're saying there's a chance. - Jim Carrey (Dumb and Dumber after hearing about 1 in a million)
The debate was about whether it could occur or not. It is much higher than 1 in a million. The pill fails 9% of the time. No studies have been done about the failed implantation rates.
The prolonged use was referring to a thinner endometrium even after stopping.
It will only be thinned for people who have an adverse response to it, not always when it is taken.
The debate was about whether it could occur or not. It is much higher than 1 in a million. The pill fails 9% of the time. No studies have been done about the failed implantation rates.
So, now we are talking about the amount of abortions that occur during the 9% of failures.
I just read some more from the hormone debate and you both use "common knowledge". He seems to be stubborn about synthetic hormones being hormones. Neither one of you provided any sources, but he was wrong there. Of course, you are at fault for the part where he put a line in his argument that you disagree with, but not giving any source that said he was wrong.
