Instigator / Pro
28
1527
rating
8
debates
62.5%
won
Topic
#1965

The current COVID-19 panic is born from, and is being fostered by defective science.

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
12
0
Better sources
8
0
Better legibility
4
0
Better conduct
4
0

After 4 votes and with 28 points ahead, the winner is...

CaptainSceptic
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
0
1450
rating
3
debates
0.0%
won
Description

This is not about splitting hairs about one particular study, I will attempt to show a clear pattern of poor science.

The COVID has been a huge problem here in Ireland and around the world. I just don't buy some of it. There is too much that does not make sense around it. I am a natural skeptic, not the foil cap type. Anyone care to challenge? See if my research has been a waste of time?

-->
@Envisage

My opening is ready, and under 10k without references.

What do I do? If I include the references as links to source numbers will that count as characters?

Round count dropped again.

Okay, 10k characters is fine, but reduce the rounds to 3.

Rather a short and less comprehensive debate that finishes and doesn't bore me than a long one that nobody can be assed to read.

-->
@oromagi
@Envisage

I have changed the description to make it clear that I am not splitting hairs about a single study. I will attempt to show a pattern of poor science.

I am concerned about dropping the response time, and length because people need to be able to have time to do their research.

Envisage I dropped it to 10k chars, and 4 rounds, but left at 2 days. I commit to respond quick (i.e.less then 24hours), but you/whoever will have time to respond and do your research if needed. If we don't need the extra rounds we can agree to turf them.

Trim the number of arguments each to 3, reduce the characters per argument to 5k, at most 10k, then I will consider accepting it.

Ideally also reduce the time to reply to 24h so this debate can finish in a week as opposed to a month as would originally entail.

-->
@CaptainSceptic

I’m curious but if all you have to prove is that some science surrounding coronavirus science is defective then I’d be a fool to accept. For example, Chinese doctors reported significant inhibitory effects on COVID from taking hydrochloroquine in late January but now, 3 months later we see that the drug probably kills more patients than it saves. Hypothesis is a legitimate step in the scientific method and we are likely years away from making satisfactory conclusions based on rigorous testing. I imagine it is easy to find defective science in any emergency room even among smart scientists doing their best. Perhaps we should focus on a specific faulty claim.

Welcome to the site!