Instigator / Pro
4
1489
rating
19
debates
42.11%
won
Topic
#2025

Governments around the world should hold China accountable for the spread of COVID-19

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
0
2

After 2 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...

oromagi
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
12
1922
rating
117
debates
97.44%
won
Description

No information

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Argument: Con's argument that no statutory imposition on China, or any other country, currently exists with which to charge China [or any other country] for bad-faith behavior overwhelms Pro's argument that the world "should" hold China responsible. "Should" does not carry the water for lack of international statutes. The fact is, currently. as Con argues, regardless of a hope for a better international response, Pro has no arguing point to make it happen. It is like arguing that we should limit our rights just because people misuse and abuse them. Behavior is difficult to legislate, and is the boon of a free society. Point s to Con.

Sources: One point Pro makes in round 1 actually argues for international law, but admits China would ultimately violate it. And yet, he has no source to back up either the assertion of the need of international law in this case, or how it would be applied. As this seems to be the crux of Pro's argument, it deserves a citation of authority backing the claim. Whereas Con cites a source opposing Pro's argument in Con's round 1, CON:IB.1: SCOPE that international law actually restricts what nations can do to seek retribution from China. Points to Con

S&G: Both participants used readable and understandable language. Tie

Conduct: Both participants were cordial to one another. however, Pro forfeited round 4, so Conduct point must go to Con.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Wonderful debate by both sides. You were both pretty convincing.

ARGUMENTS:
Pro provided evidence that China lied. He also said that Chinese people unknowingly spread the virus throughout the globe. But, if they unknowingly spread it, why should they be held accountable? Pro brings up points that China downplays the virus. Con, on the other hand, tries to disprove PRO's argument. He brings up nice questions such as " If nations sanction China anyway, will China be more likely to improve openness in future?". He challenges PRO's argument by diving into the legal zone. As of now, there are no legal charges that can be placed on China. What surprised me most was that PRO decided to focus more on the People's side of the fault, then the government. I don't think the people were at fault here for eating bats, I think it was the governments fault. Most of Con's arguments remained strong at the end. For those reasons, I'm voting CON for arguments.

SOURCES:
CON mostly used wikipedia as a source while PRO used reputable new sources.

CONDUCT:
PRO forfeits R4