Instigator / Pro
7
1436
rating
22
debates
38.64%
won
Topic
#2031

China's Response to the Coronavirus was Inadequate

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Crocodile
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
2
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
4
1470
rating
50
debates
40.0%
won
Description

R1- Opening Statements
R2- Rebuttals

Definitions:
Inadequate: not satisfactory or acceptable in quality (Provided by the Cambridge English Dictionary)
China: The Chinese Communist Party

Rules:
1. Make sure not to use profanity.
2. Forfeiting awards automatic conduct points to the opponent.

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:

Interpreting the resolution:
This debate is considering The Chinese Communist Party, and if their response has been satisfactory or acceptable in quality. Going to have to weight this on balance against harms, using normative ethics.

1. ORIGIN OF COVID-19
We all agree it came from there, which does raise the responsibility quotient.

2. MISINFORMATION, LIES, AND CENSORSHIP
This is pro’s best area, using Li Wenliang as evidence. This is part of their response, which merits consideration as to the adequacy of their response. Pro later builds on this by showing an 18-fold increase in infections caused by China’s choices in misinformation over better forms of treating a virus.

3. CORRUPTION IN THE WHO
This one really needed some sources for evidence.
I think con’s sources near the end were to defend on this.

4. FURTHER MISCELLANEOUS POINTS
This seems to be included as food for thought outside the debate, serving educational purposes rather than trying to shift the debate.

5. China has been adequate handing and curing people with the virus
They build hospitals quickly (the video did not load for me, but the description gives assumed content … surprised pro did not challenge the quality of the construction), which is concluded to mean they are curing the virus. Pro challenges this, as whatever cure China has found has not been shared with the rest of the world (he specifically states there is no cure, I am using a touch of hyperbole to help con better his points in future); and further it would have been more satisfactory to stop it at the source when they first identified it.

There is further a graph showing that they say they completely…? Graphs need more info than this, are those numbers new infections, or total currently infected? Sorry to nit-pick, I’m a data scientist. Pro counters this with an article from TIME magazine.

And they are already reopening schools. Seems scary considering problems of second waves, but still an indicator of progress.

Pro offers a key counter to much of this: “We are not arguing if the US did better than China. We are arguing that the Chinese Government's response itself was inadequate.”

6. LOVE
An interesting side note on this debate, but drifting off topic.

---

Arguments: Leaning pro, I do wish I could make it only 2 points instead of 3, as credit to con.
See above review of key points. Their official response to whistle-blowers was wholly unacceptable, which intuitively delayed other countries from taking correct actions. Inside their own borders, properly responding earlier would have saved thousands of lives per day… They could of course have responded better or worse compared to other nations, but the focus is on the Chinese Communist Party’s choices and resulting impacts.

Con, do be careful in use of rhetoric. By all means use it, but when you include good for the world “ready for such an event, for themselves, the nation and the world,” you should probably address the already proven disinformation (Li Wenliang). As is, you’re implying satisfactory to the outside world matters. … Also, be careful when dropping well labeled contention headings; this became the tipping thing to me.

Sources: Tie
This could have been a lot better. I would say that using pictures, they should probably be connected to outside information from their source.

One way I do give pro credit here, was to challenge China's credibility, which shaded the later transcripts in a negative way. Con, I suggest never telling the voters you are going to try to fill up more characters; the very act of that, is about like a speech starting with “I’m going to keep their brief.” To which in the known history of humanity, only one man has ever actually followed through on that (Robert Gates).