Governments around the world should hold China accountable for the spread of COVID-19
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...
- 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
No information
- CHINA is recognized as a sovereign state by 178 countries and as such enjoys full immunity from PRO's planned proscription
- "The rule's wider implication is that a state and any sovereign, unless
it chooses to waive its immunity, is immune to the jurisdiction of
foreign courts and the enforcement of court orders. So jealously guarded
is the law, traditionally the assertion of any such jurisdiction is
considered impossible without the foreign power's consent"
- "China has consistently claimed that a basic principle of international
law is for states and their property to have absolute sovereign
immunity. China objects to restrictive sovereign immunity. Chinese state-owned companies considered instrumental to the state have
claimed sovereign immunity in lawsuits brought against them in foreign
courts before. China's view is that sovereign immunity is a lawful right
and interest that their enterprises are entitled to protect"
- There is no international law governing the spread of infection diseases. The closest thing we have to law is the International Health Regulations treaty of 2005 but that treaty has no provisions for laying blame or demanding compensation
- According to IHR:
- Each State Party shall assess events occurring within its territory by using the decision instrument in Annex 2 [Which includes evidence of a SARS like disease]. Each State Party shall notify WHO, by the most efficient means of communication available, by way of the National IHR Focal Point, and within 24 hours of assessment of public health information, of all events which may constitute a public health emergency of international concern within its territory in accordance with the decision instrument, as well as any health measure implemented in response to those events
- Following a notification, a State Party shall continue to communicate to WHO timely, accurate and sufficiently detailed public health information available to it on the notified event, where possible including case definitions, laboratory results, source and type of the risk, number of cases and deaths, conditions affecting the spread of the disease and the health measures employed; and report, when necessary, the difficulties faced and support needed in responding to the potential public health emergency of international concern
- We know that the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission sent out its first official message regarding the virus on Dec 30. and we know that World Health Organization got its first heads up regarding the virus on Dec 31
- The only agency with oversight regarding this agreement is the World Health Organization, who has expressed full satisfaction with China's compliance:
- "We appreciate the seriousness with which China is taking this outbreak, especially the commitment from top leadership, and the transparency they have demonstrated, including sharing data and genetic sequence of the virus. WHO is working closely with the government on measures to understand the virus and limit transmission. WHO will keep working side-by-side with China and all other countries to protect health and keep people safe”
- According to China and WHO, China was in full compliance with the IHR. No other international law is applicable or relevant
- Since the WHO notified all member states of a potential SARS like disease on Dec 31, each member state is exclusively accountable for new cases in its state after Dec 31
- PRO's only recourse is to establish some new framework in international law, which carries no force without Chinese ratification and China would never ratify a new treaty designed to blame China.
- International law restricts reparations to injuries resulting from the wrongful act itself, not any knock on effects.
- "It is only injury caused by the internationally wrongful act of a State for which full reparation must be made. This phrase is used to make clear that the subject matter of reparation is, globally, the injury resulting from and ascribable to the wrongful act, rather than any and all consequences flowing from an internationally wrongful act"
- That is, any sanction would also have to identify and prove specific individual harms. Consider that most American cases of coronavirus came from Europe, not China:
- "An investigation by The Intercept shows that travel from Europe was a key facilitator of the virus’s spread in the U.S. — a large amount of the first Covid-19 cases in the U.S. can be traced to Europe. The Intercept reviewed hundreds of media reports detailing the first recorded coronavirus cases — known as the “index cases” — in U.S. states and territories. European travel preceded the index cases in at least 13 states and territories, compared to only six from China"
- PRO's unidentified plaintiffs can only address cases directly attributable to China, rather than cases attributable to other government's insufficient responses after Dec 31
- By Dec 31, China was only aware of 44 cases of unusual pneumonia, all Chinese citizens.
- Even if PRO gets past China's sovereign immunity, international law prohibits any Chinese accountability for other govts' inaction after Dec 31
- PRO has failed to offer charges that
- clearly violate international law, and
- are supported by hard evidence.
- So far, PRO want to hold China accountable for:
- mismanagement
- not a crime, almost every large organization can be legitimately accused of mismanagement regularly
- scapegoating
- not a crime. Every nation blames other nation as a part of regular international intercourse
- permits the consumption of wild animals
- not a crime. Are there any countries that don't permit some wild animal consumption?
- censored Chinese media in 2003
- irrelevant to 2020 pandemic
- Here is a state-owned English newspaper reporting on the outbreak on Dec 31, 2019
- WHO team denied access to Guandong in 2003
- irrelevant to 2020 pandemic
- As a direct result of 2003 outbreak, the Wuhan Institute of Virology began working with WHO to build the first level IV biosafety lab in China, with the intention of acting as a lookout and warning beacon for future SARS like illnesses
- In 2020, China's WHO team was not denied access. Rather, it was China's WHO team who alerted the world to the coming pandemic
- PRO has to show that China's response was somehow extraordinary in comparison to other national responses. According to WHO, China's response was rapid and in full compliance
- Beyond the lack of venue or legitimate charges, PRO must also identify the advantages of investigating, charging, and sanctioning China
- PRO argued that China censored media and barred investigators in 2003 while CON has showed that those past problems were resolved during the 2020 response. Improved openness was a definite benefit to the global response in 2020. If nations sanction China anyway, will China be more likely to improve openness in future? Probably not
- China is an easy scapegoat because the pandemic started there. But China's only official and legal obligation was to notify WHO within 24 hours of confirming a SARS like disease. According to China and WHO, China did exactly that. Beyond this single international agreement, other governments have no legitimate cause, means, or motivation for holding China accountable for the present COVID outbreak.
- CHINA is recognized as a sovereign state by 178 countries and as such enjoys full immunity from PRO's planned proscription
Unilateral action by a sovereign state does not require the state to prove any breach of international conduct atleast if we are speaking about economic policies. Case in point American sanctions against China beginning in 2018
- But that's not holding China accountable. Let's remember we defined ACCOUNTABLE as "obliged, when called upon, to answer (for one's deeds); answerable" Yes, States can drop sanctions on one another at will but that action places no obligation of the subject to answer or apologize or improve. Without some international framework for impartial fact-finding, PRO is blaming China without concern for the truth and that's not accountability, that is scapegoating.
- There
is no international law governing the spread of infection diseases.
The umbrella PRO is suggesting is that of zoonotic diseases not covered by many international laws, because laws are made sometimes as a preventive measure sometimes as a response to a catastrophe. Case in point stringent gun laws in UK, New Zealand ,and most recently Canada came only after mass shootings. In light of the recent pandemic PRO's argument is simple:A comparison to Chernobyl incedent can be very well be made, if mismanagement is not a crime then Soviet Union should not have been held accountable for defects in their RBMK reactors and Japan for the Fukushima incident.South China Morning Post terms these wetmarkets as " perfect incubators of the next deadly virus"
- CON agrees that Chernobyl and Fukushima are good examples to the extent that
- the USSR was never held to account for Chernobyl. Here is a 1987 Penn State International Law Review article illustrating the weakness of international accountability
- "A state injured by radiation contamination from the Chernobyl accident will have an arduous task in attempting to gain reparation from the Soviet Union. The victim state first must prove that its rights have been violated. It must further prove that the USSR was responsible for that violation. A state must demonstrate that the Soviet Union should be held liable for the damage sustained. In order to accomplish this result, a country should choose to proceed under the theory of liability which would afford it the greatest relief. The injured state the must prove all of the elements under the appropriate theory. In addition to the choice of an appropriate theory, another impediment is the difficulty of administering the international legal process. This has been made cumbersome because relatively few disputes have bee voluntarily submitted to international tribunals for adjudication Under this ad hoc approach, no clear substantive or procedural standards have developed, leaving countries to rely solely on the decisions in the Corfu Channel Case and the Trail Smelter Arbitration for guidance. Such inadequacy has prompted one writer to make the following remarks in the aftermath of the Chernobyl accident:
- The accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the Soviet Union on 25-26 Apr 1986 revealed a number of serious gaps in the rules of international law...as regards the international responsibility of a State, where such an accident occurs, compensate neighboring States for the damage harm suffered as consequence of the accident...It remains to mention that so far as concerns the definition and identification of inter- national responsibility for nuclear accidents, international law is noticeably weak"
- Thirty-four years later, no State actor ever managed to win any damages or reparation from the USSR or her successor state, the Russian Federation.
- Although three Japanese investigations found plenty to fault in the Fukushima disaster, 9 years later, no State actor ever managed to win any damages or reparation from Japan
- Since PRO offers these two events as good parallels and we can see that there was no international accountability of any kind in both cases, we should agree that trying to hold China accountable for a disease outbreak is just as likely to prove toothless and futile.
- According to China and WHO, China was in full compliance with the IHR.
Has CON furnished any report stating China shared case definitions, lab results and types of risk? and most importantly conditions affecting the spread of disease?
- China's compliance in this regard has so far been massive and unprecedented.
- For example, the WHO's database has nearly 400 scientific papers and reports from China so far
- The NIH database already has more than 2600 articles regarding COVID in China
- International law restricts reparations to injuries resulting from the wrongful act itself, not any knock on effects.
- PRO has made reply to this argument as yet
- PRO has failed to offer charges that
- clearly violate international law, and
- are supported by hard evidence.
- mismanagement
- like Chernobyl and Fukushima, all large organizations are prone to some management failures. No state actor has yet successfully held an unwilling foreign state accountable for misdeeds by any method short of war
- scapegoating
- not a crime. PRO has not extended this argument
- permits the consumption of wild animals
- not a crime. Are there any countries that don't permit some wild animal consumption?
PRO is a citizen of India, in India sale or consumption being liable to criminal proceedings by Wildlife protection act,1972
- Yet fish and vermin are excluded from India's prohibions
- India nevertheless struggles with wildlife market
- Investigations show that meat of
protected turtle species is sold across the fish and meat markets of
Agartala, Tripura, with just one of several markets selling atleast
4,000 turtles each year.
- Demand for meat is
particularly high in Bengal, Tripura and Assam; and has emptied rivers
and wetlands of soft-shell turtles to the brink in river stretches
across the Gangetic and the Mahanadi basin, particularly in Bihar and
Bengal.
- Such ‘wet markets’ selling wild meat of
different species present an acute health hazard and need to be looked
into urgently in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, writes Prerna Singh
Bindra in this commentar
- "A significant part of India (including parts of West Bengal, North Eastern states and Kerala) fall under the high risk zone of
zoonosis from wildlife. India like any other country of South Asia has a
number of wet markets. And in some of these wet markets (like those in
the North Eastern states) a number of exotic animals are sold for meat (although some of them are supposed to be vulnerable and
protected under wildlife laws). This, unfortunately, creates a
favourable situation for a similar zoonosis that is presumed to have
happened in the case of the novel corona virus responsible for the
present pandemic."
- PRO wisely drops claims that China should be censored in 2020 based on the assumption that China's response will be identical to the 2003 SARS outbreak
- PRO
has yet to show that China's response was somehow extraordinary in
comparison to other national responses.
- Beyond
the lack of venue or legitimate charges, PRO must also identify the
advantages of investigating, charging, and sanctioning China
- PRO dropped CON's argument that forced accountability might inhibit Chinese response to future pandemics
- PRO argues that "forcing" China to stop selling wildlife will prevent future disease but this seems unlikely. Human diseases emerge all over the world from many venues. Respecting Chinese sovereignty means that the Chinese government should regulate Chinese commerce, not a coalition of foreign powers hypocritically ignoring their own disease vectors.
- CHINA is recognized as a sovereign state by 178 countries and as such enjoys full immunity from PRO's planned proscription
- In R2, PRO tried to argue State actors could apply trade sanctions unilaterally and without any legal justification
- CON countered that while any sovereign state can modify trade policy at will, such action fails as an act of accountability as defined in R1- that is, China is not made to answer, no impartial finding of guilt is made. PRO isn’t holding China accountable or responsible, he's just advocating for monetary vigilantism
- PRO ignored CON’s argument in R3
- In R2, PRO tried to argue that unilateral sanctions vs. China would prove just as effective as sanctions vs. Russia for Chernobyl or sanctions vs. Japan for Fukushima
- CON noted that no international sanctions were ever applied in either situation and so agreed that sanctions vs China would prove just as likely and effective. Which is to say not at all likely, nor effective
- PRO ignored CON’s argument in R3
- International law restricts reparations to injuries resulting from the wrongful act itself, not any knock on effects
- PRO counters:
- “Objections to CON's details in chronological order:
- Previously CON had sited a report by an online media publication stating most cases came from Europe and not China.
- https://theintercept.com/2020/04/12/u-s-got-more-confirmed-index-cases-of-coronavirus-from-europe-than-from-china/
- PRO's objection: PRO is not questioning the integrity of the journalist and the media outlet reporting this but merely stating how can a journalist investigation be held to account as proof, they are not experts in the field( an epidemiologist). Without first hand reports by medical experts reinstating the fact this point is Null and Void
- OBJECTION: If Joe Penny's report has integrity (which PRO does not challenge) then the article's findings should be treated as good evidence for the point (more European index cases than Chinese)
- The science is less dependent on first hand reports than microbiology at this point. There are presently some 30,000 known mutations in the SARS-CoV-2 strain, many of which reveal specific geographic points of origin. Genetic sequencing allows us to say with confidence which US infections came from Wuhan, or Italy, or Spain, or the US, etc.
- Nevertheless, here's a few expert opinions:
- Gonzalez-Reiche, et al. Introductions and early spread of SARS-CoV-2 in the New York City area
- "our results show that the NYC SARS-CoV-2 epidemic has been mainly
sourced from untracked transmission between the US and Europe, with
limited evidence of direct introductions from China where the virus
originated"
- Fauver, et al. Coast-to-Coast Spread of SARS-CoV-2 during the Early Epidemic in the United States
- "Because of the overall low prevalence of COVID-19 in China, we did not
find any significant effects of travel restrictions from China that were
enacted on February 1..
Although we did find a dramatic decrease in international importation
risk following the restrictions on travel from Europe (March 13), this
decrease occurred after our estimates of domestic travel importation
risk had already surpassed that of international importation"
- Worobey, et al. The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 in Europe and the US
- "The Markov jump estimates of the movement from Hubei to Italy were: Feb. 7th, 2020 (Jan. 31st–Feb. 14th). This Italian/European cluster, in turn, was the source of multiple introductions to New York City (NYC). Using the same approach, we date the introduction leading to the largest NYC transmission cluster to Feb. 20th, 2020 (Feb. 14th–Feb. 26th)
- Despite the early successes in containment, SARS-CoV-2 eventually took
hold in both Europe and North America during February 2020: evidently
first in Italy in early February, then in Washington State mid-February,
and then in NYC later that month.
Our finding that the virus associated with the first known transmission
network in the US did not enter the country until mid-February is
sobering, since it demonstrates that the window of opportunity to block
sustained transmission of the virus stretched all the way until that
point"
- In short, after Wuhan went on lockdown on Jan 23, genetic modeling suggests that China stopped transmitting much virus and the US mostly had those few Chinese cases under control. The US outbreak was preventable over the following four weeks by heavy restriction or testing on European travel but those restrictions did not come for seven weeks. Since China has no hope of influencing US-European travel, Chinese policy cannot be blamed for the majority of US cases.
- In R1, PRO argued:
- "critical information about the treatment, incubation period and other relevant information was not shared transperantly by the chinese government"
- CON countered that the WHO has expressed full satisfaction with Chinese transparency:
- "We appreciate the seriousness with which China is taking this
outbreak, especially the commitment from top leadership, and the
transparency they have demonstrated, including sharing data and genetic
sequence of the virus"
- In R2, PRO shrank the goalposts:
- Has CON furnished any report stating China shared case definitions, lab results and types of risk? and most importantly conditions affecting the spread of disease?
- CON countered that there are hundreds of such reports, readily available on public databases
- Now PRO wants peer reviewed papers prior to Feb 2nd on Elvesier or ScienceDirect
- Lets recall that China and WHO only met to discuss terms of collaboration on Jan 28- four days later WHO starts publishing Chinese papers but PRO calls that "State involvement is delaying of release of articles"
- PRO's own nation didn't publish its first paper until Feb 3 and that paper was withdrawn on Feb 4 as dangerous pseudoscience but nevertheless PRO want's India to fault China's conduct in sharing lab results
- Elsevier was once a respected 20th century publisher but has descended into anti-access profiteering in recent years
- Lobbies against open access
- Sells articles freely available online
- Blocks data mining projects, even blocking researchers from accessing their own work
- exorbitant prices have driven Univ of CA, Stanford, Harvard, Duke, all academics in Germany, Peru, Taiwan, Norway, etc to recommend boycott
- caught publishing entirely bogus papers and fake academic journals
- ScienceDirect is operated by Elsevier- same thing
- Peer review and Chinese to English translations are irrational demands given that the virus was just discovered and hadn't even been named yet. Failure to meet irrational demands does not equal lack of transparency.
- Nevertheless, here is a tweet confirming that the Chinese shared the first draft of the new virus's complete genome on Jan 10, before the first known death from the virus
- Nevertheless, here are the interim case definitions published by WHO on Jan 15
- Nevertheless, here is the treatment data and lab results for the first 41 Wuhan patients published in The Lancet on Jan 24
- Nevertheless, here are the earliest risk communications published by WHO on Jan 26
- PRO's claim
- 2.Chinese reports in WHO database springs up after Feb 2
- is disproved.
- 3.Calling China's response massive and unprecented: 400 reports is a number, A lot of them are germane to the current situation a lot them not.
- Let's agree that some Chinese papers are irrelevant or fluff, as are many papers from many nations. Can't we agree that's surprisingly many Chinese papers published before the disease was even given a name? Can't we agree that no prior pandemic response has generated so much relevant data so quickly and that China had an important role in that success?
- 4.So 3 months delay by hand of a PhD holder in a field is seriously questionable
- CON has showed China sharing the data PRO requested within days and weeks of the outbreak. Let's agree that quicker is always better and let's assume that China's horrible govt interfered with dissemination to some degree (although evidence is scant); what evidence has PRO shown establishing some critical "3 months delay"?
- PRO has failed to offer charges that
- clearly violate international law, and
- are supported by hard evidence.
- In R2, PRO argued
- in India sale or consumption being liable to criminal proceedings by Wildlife protection act,1972
- CON countered that most nations hunt and eat wild animals and
- India has a significant illegal meat market
- PRO made no response
- PRO continued to drop China 2003 arguments
- PRO dropped both arguments
- forced accountability won't improve future response
- forced accountability by hypocritical nations wont much deter wild animal consumption
- CHINA is recognized as a sovereign state by 178 countries and as such enjoys full immunity from PRO's planned proscription
- In R2, PRO tried to argue State actors could apply trade sanctions unilaterally and without any legal justification
- CON countered that while any sovereign state can modify trade policy at will, such action fails as an act of accountability as defined in R1- that is, China is not made to answer, no impartial
finding of guilt is made. PRO isn’t holding China accountable or
responsible, he's just advocating for monetary vigilantism
- PRO ignored CON’s argument in R3
- In
R2, PRO tried to argue that unilateral sanctions vs. China would prove
just as effective as sanctions vs. Russia for Chernobyl or sanctions vs.
Japan for Fukushima
- CON noted that no international
sanctions were ever applied in either situation and so agreed that
sanctions vs China would prove just as likely and effective. Which is to
say not at all likely, nor effective
- PRO ignored CON’s argument in R3
- International law restricts reparations to injuries resulting from the wrongful act itself, not any knock on effects
- In R3, PRO asked for medical experts who confirm that most COVID-19 infections came via Europe, not China
- CON offered three papers among many supporting the current scientific consensus.
- In R3, PRO set a new bar for transparency as case definitions, lab results, risk assessments prior to Feb 2.
- CON provided all of these to demonstrate Chinese transparency.
- PRO has failed to offer charges that
- clearly violate international law, and
- are supported by hard evidence.
- PRO dropped wild animal consumption as grounds for sanction
- PRO never renewed arguments re: Chinese performance in the 2003 SARS epidemic. Let's agree that China substantially improved its epidemic response since 2003 without any sanction as motivation. What if unwarranted sanctions this time around de-motivate China from continued improvements in epidemiology and international cooperation?
- PRO dropped both arguments
- forced accountability won't improve future response
- forced accountability by hypocritical nations wont much deter wild animal consumption
- Yet fish and vermin are excluded from India's prohibions
- India nevertheless struggles with wildlife market
- Investigations show that ...........................................e present pandemic."
- CHINA is recognized as a sovereign state by 178 countries and as such enjoys full immunity from PRO's planned proscription
- In R2, PRO tried to argue State actors could apply trade sanctions unilaterally and without any legal justification.
- CON countered that while any sovereign state can modify trade policy at will, such action fails as an act of accountability as defined in R1- that is, China is not made to answer, no impartial finding of guilt is made. PRO isn’t holding China accountable or responsible, he's just advocating for monetary vigilantism.
- PRO ignored CON’s argument in R3
- clearly violate international law, and
- are supported by hard evidence.
- PRO dropped wild animal consumption as grounds for sanction
- PRO never renewed arguments re: Chinese performance in the 2003 SARS epidemic. Let's agree that China substantially improved its epidemic response since 2003 without any sanction as motivation. What if unwarranted sanctions this time around de-motivate China from continued improvements in epidemiology and international cooperation?
- PRO dropped both arguments
- forced accountability won't improve future response
- forced accountability by hypocritical nations wont much deter wild animal consumption
- CHINA is recognized as a sovereign state by 178 countries and as such enjoys full immunity from PRO's planned proscription
- In R5, PRO concedes Chinese sovereignty:
- "It is well established"
- In
R2, PRO tried to argue that unilateral sanctions vs. China would prove
just as effective as sanctions vs. Russia for Chernobyl or sanctions vs.
Japan for Fukushima
- CON noted that no international
sanctions were ever applied in either situation and so agreed that
sanctions vs China would prove just as likely and effective. Which is to
say not at all likely, nor effective
- PRO has conceded this point by lack of response
- International law restricts reparations to injuries resulting from the wrongful act itself, not any knock on effects
- In R3, CON showed how after Wuhan went on lockdown on
Jan 23, genetic modeling suggests that China stopped transmitting much
virus and the US mostly had those few Chinese cases under control. The
US outbreak was preventable over the following four weeks by heavy
restriction or testing on European travel but those restrictions did not
come for seven weeks. Since China has no hope of influencing
US-European travel, Chinese policy cannot be blamed for the majority of
US cases.
- PRO has conceded this argument by lack of response.
- In R1, PRO argued:
- "critical information about the treatment, incubation period and other relevant information was not shared transperantly by the chinese government"
- CON countered that the WHO has expressed full satisfaction with Chinese transparency:
- In R2, PRO shrank the goalposts:
- Has CON furnished any report stating China shared case definitions, lab results and types of risk? and most importantly conditions affecting the spread of disease?
- CON countered that there are hundreds of such reports, readily available on public databases
- in R3, PRO argues lack of publication in typical databases before Feb 2 suggests State involvement:
- "Why did reports started springing up suprisingly only after Feb 2, these reports are not from International journals which have a review period of generally one month or more. A person holding a professional degree can publish articles relating to his/her field, and articles cropping up suddenly after Feb 2 only suggests, State involvement is delaying of release of articles. Normally in an typical database search be it Elvesier or ScienceDirect( both one of the leading sources of Academically peer reviewed Data and research papers) variation is weeks even months, between subsequent articles."
- In R3, CON gave four (out of many) examples of Chinese reports of the type requested by PRO (case definitions, treatment data, lab results, risk communications) all published weeks before Feb 2nd, more weeks still before the virus even had a name.
- In fact, because of unprecedented promises of data sharing between publishers and free access, the amount of scientific literature already generated by COVID in 5 months represents the most overwhelming pandemic response in the history mankind.
- LitCovid is one several free comprehensive databases of COVID science, providing access to 19,857 COVID papers today and growing daily.
- On the frontline of COVID-19 Pandemic response, China has been the world leader
- 39% of published scientific papers are Chinese authors
- 46% acknowledge Chinese funding
- "Chinese researchers become more independent increasing
the volume of domestic as well as international collaborations in the
COVID-19 era. Moreover, the Chinese research funding agencies play a
vital role in supporting high quality research and development work in
China.. These findings are in contrast to some popular accounts that
Chinese scientists are withholding valuable information and reducing cooperation in the early stages of the global pandemic"
- In R5, PRO argues 'word-twisting':
- "What has CON twisted it to:
Now PRO wants peer reviewed papers prior to Feb 2nd on Elvesier or ScienceDirect"
would CON enlighten the audience as to where PRO has said in his argument the above words? "
- Here, in R3:
- A person holding a professional degree can publish articles relating to his/her field, and articles cropping up suddenly after Feb 2 only suggests, State involvement is delaying of release of articles. Normally in an typical database search be it Elvesier or ScienceDirect( both one of the leading sources of Academically peer reviewed Data and research papers) variation is weeks even months, between subsequent articles."
- While CON is confident that we could find flaws in Chinese transparency regarding COVID, the simple facts are:
- China has been more transparent about COVID than any prior epidemic
- Chinese alert systems, data sharing, international coordination, international funding, quarantine compliance, virus testing, and contact tracing all stand out as leaders among the massive pandemic response. Certainly, China's COVID leadership far outpaces the smaller efforts and participation of PRO' homeland India or CON's USA.
- CON has documented good Chinese transparency. PRO has offered no documentation to prove his R1 claim
- China generated more specific data about COVID in the first weeks of the pandemic than any nation has ever generated about any viral outbreak before.
- PRO's argument "not transparent" is disproved
- In R3, PRO argued:
- "3 months delay by hand of a PhD holder in a field is seriously questionable"
- CON replied with Chinese reports PRO requested within days and weeks
of the outbreak. What evidence has PRO shown
establishing some critical "3 months delay"?
- PRO has failed to respond and so concedes the point.
- PRO has failed to offer charges that
- clearly violate international law, and
- are supported by hard evidence.
- In R2, PRO argued
- in India sale or consumption being liable to criminal proceedings by Wildlife protection act,1972
- CON countered that most nations hunt and eat wild animals and
- India has a significant illegal meat market
- In R5, PRO blames terrorists for India's problem but helpfully documents illegal wildlife consumption in both India and US.
- PRO argues that the scale of wildlife consumption in China is greater than India or US but scale should make no difference to the legal question. Since PRO has conceded that most other nations are guilty of wildlife consumption, the question of hypocrisy is likewise conceded.
- PRO has failed to show any violation of any international law or agreement regarding wildlife trade.
- PRO has neglected to mention that China banned all wildlife trade beginning Feb 24
- Punishing China now after it has addressed wildlife consumption (and while Indian and US laws remain unchanged), makes little sense in terms of motivating or modeling good behavior in future.
- PRO concedes by non-response the point that accountability by force won't improve future Chinese epidemic response
- In R5, PRO affirms that China should be punished because of the scale of wildlife consumption in China
- PRO argues that CON can't show another country with as much wildlife consumption as China but PRO again ignores the Feb 24 Chinese ban on wildlife consumption and so has not taken potential changes to scale into account
- Most populous nation often translate into larger sized markets so to some extent PRO is punishing China for being most populous.
- PRO argues:
- "If markets reopen a future outbreak will probably happen in China, with Chinese government ignoring all the signs"
- Future disease outbreaks will "probably happen" wherever humans reside
- SInce CON has shown that the Chinese Govt response was superior to all prior epidemic responses, what evidence warrant's PRO supposition of a future "Chinese government ignoring all the signs"?
- PRO argues in favor of war as a tool to force accountability,
- citing as precedent
- The Austro-Hungarian declaration of war in response to the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand
- which directly led to the end of of Austria-Hungary within four years
- When the US was attacked in 2001 plane crashes,they declared war on the "axis of evil"
- The only state sponsor of the 9/11 attacks, Saudi Arabia, was never held accountable
- When the Israel's athletes were killed in Munich Olympics, they initiated Operation Wrath of God.
- Doing nothing to improve 50 years of conflict with Palestine and
- in violation of international law. Murder for vengeance is not accountability as defined
- Clearly accountability by PRO's and CON's definitions are very different.
- Nope. CON gave the wiktionary definition for accountable in R1. PRO may not suggest a different definition (and then not even provide that different definition) in R5
- ACCOUNTABLE [adj] is "obliged, when called upon, to answer (for one's deeds); answerable"
- Unilateral sanctions don't make China answer for China's deeds
- Just like Israel did not make Palestine answer for Munich
- Unilateral warfare won't make China answer for China's deeds
- Just like WWI and the War on Terror failed to make Serbia answer for Ferdinand or Saudi Arabia answer for 9/11
- PRO is fuzzy on combatants, but if India, for example, were to make war on China how would casualties and costs compare to the present COVID emergency?
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.
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
Thanks, croc and fauxlaw for taking the time to vote.
Thx again Nikunj for your timely subject and thoughtful argument
Hi, sorry for forfeiting round 4 ,a decision by my uni made staff and students panic for days . It was a pleasure debating though!
That's true in the present moment. Afaik "should" also allows for future. For instance you choose to use *today* in
"should bring your pet alligator to school today". It seems to me that "students should bring their pet alligator to school" is less false, you have room to take appropriated measures and change the rules.
Can’t usually precludes should. For example, if your mother argued that you should bring your pet alligator to school today, wouldn’t it be valid to counter that school policy forbids dangerous animals and besides you do not own an alligator and besides you do not have access to lawful alligator transportation? Can’t is often a good reason that one should not.
It seems to me that "... should ..." is kind of true. But they seem to be arguing about "... can ..." or "... must ...", at least oromagi .