Instigator / Pro
Points: 6

China should be held accountable for COVID-19

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 2 votes the winner is ...
oromagi
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Politics
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
Points: 14
Description
R1: Opening Statements
R2: Rebuttals
R3: Rebuttals and Conclusion
DEFINTIONS:
China- The Chinese Government
COVID-19: The disease and/or the pandemic that is currently ongoing.
Accountable: subject to the obligation to report, explain, or justify something; responsible; answerable.
Round 1
Published:
RESOLUTION: CHINA SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE COVID-19 
(PANDEMIC)

Thanks oromagi, for accepting my challenge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PREAMBLE:

DEFINITIONS:






COVID-19:  The disease and/or the pandemic that is currently ongoing.

I would like to add one more definition to this debate that was not listed in the rules. My opponent may object if he feels necessary.  



Burden of Proof:
In this friendly discussion, the Burden of Proof shall hereby be shared.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contention 1: Virus Caused by Chinese Propaganda/Downplaying
Of course, the virus was not caused by propaganda directly. The propaganda and downplaying of the virus caused it to spread around the world. Here is a timeline of China’s cover-up and propaganda campaign [1]
“Dec. 10: Wei Guixian, one of the earliest known coronavirus patients, starts feeling ill.
Dec. 16: Patient admitted to Wuhan Central Hospital with infection in both lungs but resistant to anti-flu drugs. Staff later learned he worked at a wildlife market connected to the outbreak.
Dec. 27: Wuhan health officials are told that a new coronavirus is causing the illness.
Dec. 30:
  • Ai Fen, a top director at Wuhan Central Hospital, posts information on WeChat about the new virus. She was reprimanded for doing so and told not to spread information about it.
  • Wuhan doctor Li Wenliang also shares information on WeChat about the new SARS-like virus. He is called in for questioning shortly afterward.
  • Wuhan health commission notifies hospitals of a “pneumonia of unclear cause” and orders them to report any related information.
Dec. 31:
  • Wuhan health officials confirm 27 cases of illness and close a market they think is related to the virus' spread.
  • China tells the World Health Organization’s China office about the cases of an unknown illness.
Jan. 1: Wuhan Public Security Bureau brings in for questioning eight doctors who had posted information about the illness on WeChat.
  • An official at the Hubei Provincial Health Commission orders labs, which had already determined that the novel virus was similar to SARS, to stop testing samples and to destroy existing samples.
Jan. 2: Chinese researchers map the new coronavirus' complete genetic information. This information is not made public until Jan. 9.
Jan. 7: Xi Jinping becomes involved in the response.
Jan. 9: China announces it has mapped the coronavirus genome.
Jan. 11–17: Important prescheduled CCP meeting held in Wuhan. During that time, the Wuhan Health Commission insists there are no new cases.
Jan. 13: First coronavirus case reported in Thailand, the first known case outside China.
Jan. 14: WHO announces Chinese authorities have seen "no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus."
Jan. 15: The patient who becomes the first confirmed U.S. case leaves Wuhan and arrives in the U.S., carrying the coronavirus.
Jan. 18:
  • The Wuhan Health Commission announces four new cases.
  • Annual Wuhan Lunar New Year banquet. Tens of thousands of people gathered for a potluck.
Jan. 19: Beijing sends epidemiologists to Wuhan.
Jan. 20:
  • The first case announced in South Korea.
  • Zhong Nanshan, a top Chinese doctor who is helping to coordinate the coronavirus response, announces the virus can be passed between people.
Jan. 21:
  • The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention confirms the first coronavirus case in the United States.
  • CCP flagship newspaper People’s Daily mentions the coronavirus epidemic and Xi's actions to fight it for the first time.
  • China's top political commission in charge of law and order warns that “anyone who deliberately delays and hides the reporting of [virus] cases out of his or her own self-interest will be nailed on the pillar of shame for eternity."
Jan. 23: Wuhan and three other cities are put on lockdown. Right around this time, approximately 5 million people leave the city without being screened for the illness.
Jan. 24–30: China celebrates the Lunar New Year holiday. Hundreds of millions of people are in transit around the country as they visit relatives.
Jan. 24: China extends the lockdown to cover 36 million people and starts to rapidly build a new hospital in Wuhan. From this point, very strict measures continue to be implemented around the country for the rest of the epidemic.
The bottom line: China is now trying to create a narrative that it's an example of how to handle this crisis when in fact its early actions led to the virus spreading around the globe.”

This shows that China’s late actions directly relate to the spread of the current pandemic. The thing I find most interesting is this hypocritical comment:
“China's top political commission in charge of law and order warns that “anyone who deliberately delays and hides the reporting of [virus] cases out of his or her own self-interest will be nailed on the pillar of shame for eternity."
Ergo, China will be nailed on the pillar of shame for eternity.


Contention 2: China’s Late.
China is legally obligated to share reports and share information with the WHO in case of an emergency. However, that was not the case. For 2 months, China shared extremely limited information about the virus. It failed to disclose that 1,700 healthcare workers were infected until Feb. 14, over a month and a half after the crisis had started [2]. According to the time line mentioned in Contention 1, China did not share the mapped genome for a week. If it had shared it, thousands of lives could’ve been saved. Also, China permitted a huge "Lunar Year" festival which thousands of people attended. They knew about coronavirus, and chose to still let that banquet happen. 


Contention 3: Law and Order
The regulations mandating pandemics and health emergencies are called the IHR (International Health Regulations.) [3] Here is a small excerpt.

“...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”

China obviously has not communicated with the WHO on a timely basis. Therefore, the IHR has been broken. Although these regulations cannot be enforced, this contention proves that China should be held accountable for the virus. Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, an attorney in Israel stated [4]
an argument could be made that just like support for terrorism, which is legally actionable, a government that engages in such reckless disregard and negligence and covers up an epidemic which has the potential to spread worldwide could be held legally liable ,"
This contention is best summarized by a quote from the American Enterprise Institute's Ivana Stradner: "China's delay in reporting the outbreak violated international law."

Conclusion:
China should be held accountable for coronavirus, due to its cover-up and propaganda, it's late and delayed response, and international law. I end with the point that 95% of coronavirus cases could've been stopped if China acted earlier, and rapid geographic proliferation could've been stopped. [5]

Published:
thx, croc

RESOLUTION: CHINA SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE COVID-19 (PANDEMIC)

OBJECTION: Pro's thesis is written in the passive voice, thereby avoiding agency.  This thesis has no subject.  Who should hold China accountable?  PRO must specify.  What International body has such authority over a sovereign state?   PRO must specify.

DEFINITIONS:
Pro's definitions are accepted

Let's agree right off that unilateral sanctions or extra-jurisdictional court findings in no way match PRO's definition of ACCOUNTABILITY

BoP is shared

  • PRO must prove that some (as yet undefined) group has the right and responsibility to legally compel China to explain and justify its pandemic response
  • CON argues that no such group exists

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contention A: IMMUNITY

  • 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
Contention B: SCOPE

  • 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 COVID-19 came from Europe, not China:
      • 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.
        • 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
          • 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)"
          • Worobey, et al.   The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 in Europe and the US
            • " 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"
    • 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 notification
Contention C: BENEFIT

  • The world's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, as led by China, has been the fastest and most effective response in the history of epidemics
    • For example, over four years passed between the first confirmed AIDS death in the US and the first Presidential directives addressing the pandemic
    • 5 months passed between the first confirmed SARS death and the WHO's first issuance of a global health alert
    • 10 months passed during the 2009 swine flu pandemic between the first confirmed death and the the WHO's declaration of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern
    • 10 months passed during the 2015–2016 Zika virus epidemic between the first confirmed death and the PHEIC
      • 21 days passed between the first death attributed to COVID-19 and the PHEIC
  • China leads the world in COVID-19 research
    • 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"
CONCLUSION:
  • No legal apparatus for accountability
    • or assessing scope
  • What is the benefit derived from punishing China for leading the world's most vigorous and effective global pandemic response ever?
Sources Listed:
Round 2
Published:
RESOULTION: CHINA SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE COVID-19 (PANDEMIC)


Thanks oromagi for the speedy response. I will begin refuting your contentions and arguments. I also noticed that you took much of your argument from a previous debate. This is fine, of course, but I think VOTERS should take note of that.
OBJECTION: Pro's thesis is written in the passive voice, thereby avoiding agency.  This thesis has no subject.  Who should hold China accountable?  PRO must specify.  What International body has such authority over a sovereign state?   PRO must specify.

THE WORLD SHOULD HOLD CHINA ACCOUNTABLE. Everyone should hold China accountable. No international body has authority over China, however, I do not have to prove if one does. See OBJECTION TO BOP.



OBJECTION TO BoP.
CON states
PRO must prove that some (as yet undefined) group has the right and responsibility to legally compel China to explain and justify its pandemic response
But, clearly, the resolution states that
CHINA SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE COVID-19 
Notice, both CON and VOTERS that I stated the definition of "should" in my R1 argument. SHOULD ≠ CAN ≠ WILL. I shall provide a few analogies to support this claim. 
 
INDIA SHOULD ATTACK PAKISTAN ≠ INDIA WILL ATTACK PAKISTAN, nor does it equal that INDIA CAN ATTACK PAKISTAN.

YOU SHOULD EAT A 3000 CALORIE BURGER ≠ YOU WILL EAT A 3000 CALORIE BURGER, nor does it equal that YOU CAN EAT A 3000 CALORIE BURGER.

So, if should does not equal can, nor does it equal will, I do not have to prove and I will not prove that some group can or will hold China accountable. According to the BoP, all I have to do is prove that China should be held accountable for the pandemic.

Note: If the formatting looks strange, I am sincerely sorry, the "copy-paste" from google docs to DART works in weird ways.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

REBUTTAL-


Contention A: IMMUNITY- Rebuttal

Yes, China is recognized as a sovereign state. That means, no body of government or law has control over it. But, as stated above, I do not have to prove one does. I also question the reliability of the WHO as a body. Several acts of corruption and mismanagement have been noted that took place within the WHO. According to several sources, including The Lancet, The Atlantic, The National Review, and even left-wing news sources such as ABC News, BBC News, and CNN, the WHO’s response to the pandemic was heavily influenced by the Chinese Communist Party. It’s response to coronavirus should be considered as the most corrupted and worst response to a pandemic in modern history. It’s director-general, Dr. Tedros Adhanom, is not a physician, and is not qualified. During this pandemic, he has spent most of his time as director-general reassuring authoritarian regimes such as China, and praising China. I would say that the failure of the WHO and the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives, is directly related to China’s response to the coronavirus itself. This further proves that the coronavirus response of China was inadequate due to the corruption it caused in the WHO. Here are a few examples of more WHO corruption:

“(The WHO) routinely has spent about $200 million a year on travel expenses, more than what it doles out to fight some of the biggest problems in public health, including AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria combined.” [1]
This is from a CNN source, taken from mid-Feburary [2]

The UN agency relied on funding and the cooperation of members to function, giving wealthy member states like China considerable influence. Perhaps one of the most overt examples of China's sway over the WHO is its success in blocking Taiwan's access to the body, a position that could have very real consequences for the Taiwanese people if the virus takes hold there.
Well, the virus did "travel" to Taiwan. But, VOTERS and CON, notice how Taiwan has less than 1,000 cases, and less than 10 deaths. It's not even a member of the WHO. A analysis of the coronavirus in China found out that Wuhan Deaths could be 20 times greater than the average amount. People in the city do not even believe in the death toll. [3]


Contention B: SCOPE- Rebuttal

  • 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 COVID-19 came from Europe, not China:
      • 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.
        • 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
          • 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)"
          • Worobey, et al.   The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 in Europe and the US
            • " 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"
    • 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 notification
Everything CON stated was true, except for his last sentence. I believe CON fails to realize that the only reason that there are cases in the US, Europe, Australia, etc. are because China let the virus spread throughout its country, and then throughout the world. Yes, most cases from the US come from Europe, but where did the cases from Europe come from? China.

Contention C: BENEFIT- Rebuttal

  • The world's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, as led by China, has been the fastest and most effective response in the history of epidemics
    • For example, over four years passed between the first confirmed AIDS death in the US and the first Presidential directives addressing the pandemic
    • 5 months passed between the first confirmed SARS death and the WHO's first issuance of a global health alert
    • 10 months passed during the 2009 swine flu pandemic between the first confirmed death and the the WHO's declaration of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern
    • 10 months passed during the 2015–2016 Zika virus epidemic between the first confirmed death and the PHEIC
      • 21 days passed between the first death attributed to COVID-19 and the PHEIC
  • China leads the world in COVID-19 research
    • 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"
I think CON again fails to realize that his argument is flawed. COVID-19 spread much faster than SARS, and the swine flu pandemic. If the COVID-19 response was the fastest and most effective, how come their are 7 million cases and over 400,000 deaths?[4]

Conclusion:
-China's response was not the most "vigorous and effective".
-China should be held accountable for Covid-19
-Most COVID-19 cases are directly attributable to China itself. 

Sources Listed
Published:
thx, croc

(REVISED) RESOLUTION:  EVERYBODY in the WORLD SHOULD HOLD CHINA ACCOUNTABLE for the COVID-19 PANDEMIC

RE: OBJECTION TO BoP

  • We're using PRO 's definition of SHOULD:
    • " used to show what is right, appropriate, etc., especially when criticizing somebody’s actions"
      • PRO must prove that everybody in the world has the right and responsibility to legally compel China to explain and justify its pandemic response
        • If PRO's subject doesn't have the right to compel China then how can PRO argue that everybody in the world SHOULD?
          • Wouldn't any compulsion absent a right to act be found a priori unrighteous?
        • If PRO's subject doesn't have the responsibility to compel China then how can PRO argue that everybody in the world SHOULD?
          • If the subject has no jurisdiction, then by what authority does everybody in the world act?
            • Is PRO calling for some violation of China's sovereignty?
              • Is PRO willing to risk war?
                • If yes, PRO needs to state as much explicitly.  VOTERs should be advised whether PRO's plan is illegal.  VOTERS deserve to know whether PRO is advocating military engagement. CON argues that any SHOULD bears a substantially higher burden for persuasion when the plan is unlawful and/or involves a lot of death
                • If no, PRO's plan is impossible
  • PRO is presenting a plan.  If the plan is unwise or disproportional or not possible those are valid refutations of SHOULD.
    • Arguing that India should attack Pakistan assumes that India can attack Pakistan and that India will attack Pakistan.  If India has no legal grounds for war then India should not attack Pakistan- that would not be appropriate.  If the Indian people refuse en masse to go to war (will not), then attacking India would not be right.  If CON can show that India can't attack Pakistan then VOTERS will be more likely to be persuaded by should not
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R1 REBUTTAL

Contention 1: Virus Caused by Chinese Propaganda/Downplaying

  • The propaganda and downplaying of the virus caused it to spread around the world
    • For evidence, PRO provides a timeline that doesn't contain a single example of Chinese propaganda or international downplay
      • PRO should explain how this long cut & paste serves his case
    • PRO's timeline affirms these essential facts:
      • Wuhan health officials confirm an outbreak of some unknown disease on Dec 31 and notify WHO on the same day (thereby fulfilling China's international health agreement obligations)
      • On Jan 20, China confirms human-to-human transmission and locks down 4 major cities, begins testing, contact tracing  just 3 days later
      • PRO wants to characterize this response as slow to which CON ask slower than who? when? 
        • CON expects PRO to show multiple examples of faster national responses to new disease outbreak
        • If  PRO cannot show faster national epidemic response than China's COVID response, PRO must concede "fastest epidemic response ever"
    • PRO's timeline sources one peer-reviewed study which finds that by early March, China's rapid-fire implementation of
      • travel restrictions
      • social distancing, lockdown
      • mass testing and contact tracing
        • were not just highly effective but
        • "without [these interventions], the COVID-19 cases would likely have shown a 67-fold increase (interquartile range 44 - 94) by February 29"
        • "if [these interventions] were conducted one week, two weeks, or three weeks later than they were, cases may have shown a 3-fold (IQR 2 - 4), 7-fold (5 - 10), or 18-fold (11 - 26) increase, respectively"
  • The bottom line: China is now trying to create a narrative that it's an example of how to handle this crisis when in fact its early actions led to the virus spreading around the globe.”
    • China's epidemic response is the fastest mass national response to a disease outbreak in history
      • China confirmed human-to-human transmission on Jan 20
        • any expectation that the Chinese govt. implement quarantines before confirming human-to-human transmission is unreasonable
        • PRO must show that the 3 day turn around from confirmation to quarantine is somehow unacceptable
          • Let's recall that most nations waited weeks or months to quarantine after confirming infections in their countries
  • “China's top political commission in charge of law and order warns that “anyone who deliberately delays and hides the reporting of cases out of his or her own self-interest will be nailed on the pillar of shame for eternity."
    • PRO is using this as an example of China downplaying? 
      • CON submits PRO's own quote as evidence that  China was taking the disease quite seriously as early as Jan 21
Contention 2: China’s Late

  • However, that was not the case. For 2 months, China shared extremely limited information about the virus. It failed to disclose that 1,700 healthcare workers were infected until Feb. 14, over a month and a half after the crisis had started
    • We have three different false claims here
      • Failed to disclose 1700 healthcare workers infected
        • for 2 months [Dec 14]
          • There were 0 confirmed cases two months before Feb 14
        • for 1.5 months [Jan 1]
          • There were 27 confirmed cases 1.5 months before Feb 14
        • for 1 month Jan 14
        • PRO's general claim is also proven false
          • WHO doesn't report 1700 cases total until Jan 26. It does not seem likely that 1700 healthcare workers were infected until substantially after this
          • Here is a Chinese paper published in JAMA on Feb 7 reporting that of 138 patients at Zhongnan Hospital on Jan 28, 40 (29%) were healthcare workers- a 10 day turnaround
  • China did not share the mapped genome for a week. If it had shared it, thousands of lives could’ve been saved
    • China shared the map on Jan 9, 10 days after China knew it had a new disease, 2 days before the first known death from the virus, four days before the first known case outside of China
      • 7 days refutes PRO's claim of "2 months"
        • The evidence that China had sequence on Jan 2 is anecdotal and not confirmed
      • Nations had enough to start testing for the presence of coronavirus on Dec 31
        • The genetic sequence was not necessary for nations to begin lockdowns, travel restrictions, screening, contact tracing, etc and most nations still waited weeks or months to begin large scale interventions.  How can PRO prove that 7 day gap had any effect on international responses?
  • Also, China permitted a huge "Lunar Year" festival which thousands of people attended
    • According to PRO's own timeline that festival was Jan 18, two days before scientists even confirmed human-to-human transmission
      • How can PRO fault any govt. for not quarantining before scientists even advise whether or not a quarantine is warranted?
      • The Chinese govt. implemented quarantine 3 days after scientists confirmed human transmission and just before China's biggest holiday- an decision of astonishing swiftness and courage for any politician.  The US, for example, knew of American transmissions by Jan 21 but lockdowns didn't start for nearly 2 months
Contention 3: Law and Order
    • China obviously has not communicated with the WHO on a timely basis
      • PRO's "two month delay" claims have been show to be fiction
      • From early on, the WHO praised China's 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. 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”
    OBJECTION

    • Media BIas/Fact Check reports:
      • "We rate Fox News strongly Right-Biased due to editorial positions and story selection that favors the right. We also rate them Mixed factually and borderline Questionable based on poor sourcing and the spreading of conspiracy theories that later must be retracted after being widely shared. Further, Fox News would be rated a Questionable source based on numerous failed fact checks by hosts and pundits"
        • CON rejects all evidence sourced from FOX News as unreliable
    Conclusion:

      • 95% of coronavirus cases could've been stopped if China acted earlier, and rapid geographic proliferation could've been stopped
        • PRO conclusion is based on an awful misreading of the same paper quoted above
          • "The study...shows that without non-pharmaceutical interventions – such as early detection, isolation of cases, travel restrictions and cordon sanitaire – the number of infected people would have been 67 times larger than that which actually occurred"
          • "The research also found that if interventions in the country could have been conducted one week, two weeks, or three weeks earlier, cases could have been reduced by 66 percent, 86 percent and 95 percent respectively – significantly limiting the geographical spread of the disease. However, if NPIs were conducted one week, two weeks, or three weeks later than they were, the number of cases may have shown a 3-fold, 7-fold, or 18-fold increase, respectively"
            • PRO edits out the "if interventions could have been conducted" part because that's where his argument fails
              • Lai, et al places the date of China interventions as Jan 23- the Wuhan lockdown, major travel restrictions, testing, etc
                • demonstrates that China's swift, effective response likely saved tens of millions of lives worldwide
                • How could China possibly justify a lockdown before human transmission was confirmed on Jan 19?
                • 3 weeks before, COVID was 27 patients in Wuhan, no deaths.  Imagine the international outrage if China had shut down factories, crashing stock markets without any scientific basis whatsoever?
      Round 3
      Published:
      Thanks oromagi.

      OBJECTION- (REVISED) RESOLUTION:  EVERYBODY in the WORLD SHOULD HOLD CHINA ACCOUNTABLE for the COVID-19 PANDEMIC
      My opponent states that I must prove that everybody in the world has the right and responsibility to hold China accountable. But, my opponent fails to realize that the "right" in the definition does not mean the same thing as the "right" in his statement below.

      One "right" defines what is correct.

      The other one definition defines "a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way."

      My opponent is clearly confused on which one I meant. 
                             

      I'm saying that Because they did not respond rightly or appropriately, EVERYBODY should hold China accountable for the COVID-19 Pandemic, (contrary to my opponent's statement- everybody in the world has the right and responsibility to legally compel China to explain and justify its pandemic response). "Legally" is not at play here

      My opponent then states
      • If PRO's subject doesn't have the responsibility to compel China then how can PRO argue that everybody in the world SHOULD?
        • If the subject has no jurisdiction, then by what authority does everybody in the world act?
          • Is PRO calling for some violation of China's sovereignty?
            • Is PRO willing to risk war?
              • If yes, PRO needs to state as much explicitly.  VOTERs should be advised whether PRO's plan is illegal.  VOTERS deserve to know whether PRO is advocating military engagement. CON argues that any SHOULD bears a substantially higher burden for persuasion when the plan is unlawful and/or involves a lot of death
              • If no, PRO's plan is impossible
      My opponents first statement is now invalid due to my reasoning above. My opponent still does not get the definition of should. China should be held accountable does not equal China can be held accountable. No, I am not willing to risk war, and I have not even presented a designated plan, therefore my opponent's argument here is untrue. I cannot stress enough, the resolution is EVERYBODY should hold China accountable, not EVERYBODY can hold china accountable. 

      My opponent gives a refute to my points by saying:
      Arguing that India should attack Pakistan assumes that India can attack Pakistan and that India will attack Pakistan.  If India has no legal grounds for war then India should not attack Pakistan- that would not be appropriate.  If the Indian people refuse en masse to go to war (will not), then attacking India would not be right.  If CON can show that India can't attack Pakistan then VOTERS will be more likely to be persuaded by should not
      But, this is simply not true. If India should attack Pakistan, it does no assume that India can attack Pakistan and that India will attack Pakistan. A hungry African boy should get water, does that mean he can get water? Does that mean he will get water? No. Same thing for India and Pakistan. If India should attack Pakistan, that doesn't mean India can attack Pakistan. It also doesn't mean India will attack Pakistan. My opponent drops my second example.

        • For evidence, PRO provides a timeline that doesn't contain a single example of Chinese propaganda or international downplay
          • PRO should explain how this long cut & paste serves his case
        • PRO's timeline affirms these essential facts:
          • Wuhan health officials confirm an outbreak of some unknown disease on Dec 31 and notify WHO on the same day (thereby fulfilling China's international health agreement obligations)
          • On Jan 20, China confirms human-to-human transmission and locks down 4 major cities, begins testing, contact tracing  just 3 days later
          • PRO wants to characterize this response as slow to which CON ask slower than who? when? 
            • CON expects PRO to show multiple examples of faster national responses to new disease outbreak
            • If  PRO cannot show faster national epidemic response than China's COVID response, PRO must concede "fastest epidemic response ever"
        • PRO's timeline sources one peer-reviewed study which finds that by early March, China's rapid-fire implementation of
          • travel restrictions
          • social distancing, lockdown
          • mass testing and contact tracing
            • were not just highly effective but
            • "without [these interventions], the COVID-19 cases would likely have shown a 67-fold increase (interquartile range 44 - 94) by February 29"
            • "if [these interventions] were conducted one week, two weeks, or three weeks later than they were, cases may have shown a 3-fold (IQR 2 - 4), 7-fold (5 - 10), or 18-fold (11 - 26) increase, respectively"
      • The bottom line: China is now trying to create a narrative that it's an example of how to handle this crisis when in fact its early actions led to the virus spreading around the globe.”
        • China's epidemic response is the fastest mass national response to a disease outbreak in history
          • China confirmed human-to-human transmission on Jan 20
            • any expectation that the Chinese govt. implement quarantines before confirming human-to-human transmission is unreasonable
            • PRO must show that the 3 day turn around from confirmation to quarantine is somehow unacceptable
              • Let's recall that most nations waited weeks or months to quarantine after confirming infections in their countries
      • “China's top political commission in charge of law and order warns that “anyone who deliberately delays and hides the reporting of cases out of his or her own self-interest will be nailed on the pillar of shame for eternity."
        • PRO is using this as an example of China downplaying? 
          • CON submits PRO's own quote as evidence that  China was taking the disease quite seriously as early as Jan 21
      My timeline shows the epic delay between the first case and the national response. My opponent also ignores the fact that China arrested doctors that were spreading misinformation about this virus. He then states that China's national response was the fastest ever, in fact the fastest in history. That is a blatant lie. I'll state responses that were far faster.

      -South Korea
      -Had the most testing in relation to their population. Regarded as one of the best.
      -Taiwan
      Managed to keep there cases less than 1000.
      -Singapore
      -New Zealand
      -Singapore
      -Greece
      -Denmark
      -Vietnam  (Overall best response)
      In fact, China's response to the Pandemic was one of the worst. Comparable to the likes of the US and Brazil.[1] [2] 


      China's Late- DEFENSE
      First claim- I had a typo, I meant one month. Here is the exact quote from the Washington Post:
      But it was not until Feb. 14 — more than a month into the crisis — that China disclosed that about 1,700 front-line medical workers were infected at the time. The figure, which has since grown, was published in a research paper, not reported directly to the World Health Organization.
      CON consistently uses the WHO as a source, but as already proven, it is unreliable and corrupt.

      My opponent states that the late mapped genome had no effect on the international level. Clearly, this is not the case.  CNBC, stated that if China had released information such as correct death rates, and the mapped genome. The rapid increase of cases could've been "dramatically slowed" [3] As stated before, based on estimation amounts by the crematoriums and other factors, China's death toll could be 20 times higher than what they reported.

      CON then states that China's allowing of the LNY festival was not their fault, because China did not know if H2H transmission was real in coronavirus. Well, VOTERS and CON, imagine this. You, as a scientist are not sure about a dangerous new virus. You do not know anything about it, but you do know that hundreds are infected and many are dead as well. But, you're still not sure about H2H transmission. Would you allow a gathering of tens of thousands of people? Even if you're not sure, better safe than sorry.
      --------------------------------------------
      Law and Order- Defense

      As stated before, the inside of the WHO is not the same as the outside. According to source 2, of my round 1 argument, the WHO was extremely frustrated with the lack of data coming from China. The article proves that the "timely response" with China simply does not exist.
      ----------------------------------------------

      Conclusion- Defense

      My opponent ignores the obvious. 
      "The research also found that if interventions in the country could have been conducted one week, two weeks, or three weeks earlier, cases could have been reduced by 66 percent, 86 percent and 95 percent respectively – significantly limiting the geographical spread of the disease. However, if NPIs were conducted one week, two weeks, or three weeks later than they were, the number of cases may have shown a 3-fold, 7-fold, or 18-fold increase, respectively"

      If they intervened even one week earlier, cases would've been reduced by 66%. And, CON automatically thinks that these interventions meant draconian lockdown measures and intense quarantines. No, these interventions mean, actually informing people about the virus, not spreading propaganda, and putting people that are sick into quarantine before putting the entire nation into one. 

      In Conclusion, China should be held responsible for the coronavirus for its
      - Misinformation campaign
      • Twitter deleted millions of accounts that spread misinformation about the virus.
      -It's failed responsibility and legal obligation
      -And the delayed interventions and response.

      Published:
      RE: OBJECTION TO BoP

      • We're using PRO 's definition of SHOULD:
        • " used to show what is right, appropriate, etc., especially when criticizing somebody’s actions"
          • PRO contends that CON doesn't understand the difference between the adjective form of RIGHT and the subjective form of RIGHT.
            • RIGHT [noun] is "that which complies with justice, law or reason"
              • PRO calls this "a moral or legal entitlement"
              • CON's usage: "...sovereign immunity is a lawful right and interest"
            • RIGHT [adj] is "complying with justice, correctness or reason"
              • PRO calls this "what is correct"
              • CON's usage: "...then attacking India would not be right"
          • CON stands by all prior usage of the word RIGHT in this debate and in both senses (as well as several other senses of the word)
            • Here is a sentence from R2 where CON uses and interlinks both senses of the word, demonstrating the falsity of PRO's claim:
              • "Wouldn't any compulsion absent a right to act be found a priori unrighteous?"
          • PRO's OBJECTION has zero merit
      • PRO must prove that everybody in the world has the right and responsibility to legally compel China to explain and justify its pandemic response
        • If nations don't have the RIGHT [noun] (legal, moral entitlement) to compel China, then nations would not be RIGHT [adjective] (correct) to act.
          • Since SHOULD is used to show what is right (correct) and lack of moral or legal entitlement makes national acts of accountability unrighteous, SHOULD is disproved using PRO's own definition and in spite of PRO's semantic diversions.
      • PRO is presenting a plan.  If the plan is unwise or disproportional or not possible those are valid refutations of SHOULD.  If the plan lacks any legal or moral basis, then SHOULD is disproved.
      • VOTERS will note that PRO outright dodged his obligation to  VOTERS to explain whether his plan violates international law.
      • VOTERS will note that PRO refused to say whether his plan risks or even deliberately provokes war with China.
        • These two drops demonstrate that PRO's plan is not to be taken seriously.
      -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Contention 1: Virus Caused by Chinese Propaganda/Downplaying

      • PRO drops:
        • PRO provides a timeline that doesn't contain a single example of Chinese propaganda or international downplay
        • PRO's timeline sources one peer-reviewed study which finds that by early March, China's rapid-fire implementation of
          • travel restrictions
          • social distancing, lockdown
          • mass testing and contact tracing
            • were not just highly effective but
            • prevented 98.5% of cases that would likely have developed (67-fold) by Feb 29 without intervention
            • if 1, 2, or 3 weeks slower, then 3,7,or 18 times worse.
        • China confirmed human-to-human transmission on Jan 20
          • any expectation that the Chinese govt. implement quarantines before confirming human-to-human transmission is unreasonable
          • PRO must show that the 3 day turn around from confirmation to quarantine is somehow unacceptable
            • Most nations waited weeks or months to quarantine after confirming infections in their countries
      • PRO argues that 8 other countries were faster than China in terms of national response but
        • CON's assertion of "fastest response" was clearly in the context of detection, alert, and intervention
          • all 8 countries enjoyed the benefit of China's international warning on Dec 31 and none of those countries went on lockdown before the Jan 23 lockdown of Wuhan.  None of these countries detected, alerted the world, or implemented interventions sooner than China
          • CON affirms that no other national response has gone from detection of virus to quarantine faster than China did with COVID.
        • PRO's argument seems to be more about efficacy than speed (most testing, etc) but CON argued speed of detection, prevention.
          • OBJECTION:
            • Media BIas/Fact Check reports:
              • "We rate Breitbart Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, publication of conspiracy theories and propaganda as well as numerous false claims. Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis."
                • CON rejects all evidence sourced from Breitbart as unreliable
          • That leaves an MSNBC article about public approval which does not mention China at all
            • Here's a  CNBC article which does mention China, finding that China enjoys the highest satisfaction with leaders responding to COVID- 85% satisfaction- higher than any other nation.
        • PRO's assertions that 8 nations responded to COVID faster than China is debunked. 
        • PRO's claim that China's pandemic response was "one of the worst" is without merit.
      Contention 2: China’s Late

      • PRO concedes that China did not fail to disclose 1700 healthcare workers infected on Dec 14
        • PRO drops the same claims for Jan 1, and Jan 14 (when there were only 41 known cases)
      • PRO drops evidence China provided preliminary healthcare worker findings by Feb 7
          • PRO's claim of coverup for 1,1.5, and 2 months are all shown to be quite false.
      • PRO drops:

          • How can PRO fault any govt. for not quarantining before scientists even advise whether or not a quarantine is warranted?
          • The Chinese govt. implemented quarantine 3 days after scientists confirmed human transmission and just before China's biggest holiday- an decision of astonishing swiftness and courage for any politician.  The US, for example, knew of American transmissions by Jan 21 but lockdowns didn't start for nearly 2 months
      • PRO argues
        • CON consistently uses the WHO as a source, but as already proven, it is unreliable and corrupt.
          • Media Bias/ Fact Check reports
            • "we rate the World Health Organization a Pro-Science source of information and High for factual reporting due to a long record of factual reporting"
      • CNBC, stated that if China had released information such as correct death rates, and the mapped genome. The rapid increase of cases could've been "dramatically slowed"
        • The actual quote is "China stalled for at least two weeks more on providing WHO with detailed data on patients and cases, according to recordings of internal meetings held by the U.N. health agency through January — all at a time when the outbreak arguably might have been dramatically slowed"
          • Here is China's first detailed case data from Jan 24- the day after lockdown
            • CNBC is probably accurately reporting that somebody at WHO claimed that China stalled on releasing this data for two weeks but this seems unlikely.
              • For example, the case data reports that 6 of the original 41 died but
                • 2 weeks before on Jan 10, nobody had yet died of COVID.
        • PRO dropped CON's refutation that "thousands of lives could've been saved"
        • PRO dropped CON's argument that Jan 2 sequencing is based one scientist's claim and not yet corroborated
        • PRO dropped CON's argument that the genetic sequence was not essential to any nation's epidemic response
          • "The genetic sequence was not necessary for nations to begin lockdowns, travel restrictions, screening, contact tracing, etc and most nations still waited weeks or months to begin large scale interventions.  How can PRO prove that 7 day gap had any effect on international responses?"
      Contention 3: Law and Order

      • PRO dropped:
        • PRO's "two month delay" claims have been show to be fiction
      • source 2, of my round 1 argument proves that the "timely response" with China simply does not exist.
        • Again, debunked in CONTENTION 2, R2.
          • China shared healthcare worker infection rates as early as Feb 7
          • China did not coverup 1700 infected healthcare workers for weeks until Feb 14, that number of infected healthcare workers was not possible until mid-Feb.
      • PRO dropped FOX news claimed of "legal liability"  No evidence remains supporting Chinese liability
      Contention A: IMMUNITY

      • PRO concedes Chinese immunity form international law
        • Yes, China is recognized as a sovereign state. That means, no body of government or law has control over it.

      Contention B: SCOPE

      • PRO concedes Chinese immunity to knock on effects, limiting Chinese liability to pre-Jan23 which is to say little or none.
      Contention C: BENEFIT

      • PRO never argued and so concedes that China leads the world in COVID research, funding, and prevention.
        • PRO failed to show that any national response to a new disease outbreak has ever improved on China's present performance.
      • PRO dropped
        • Lai, et al places the date of China interventions at Jan 23- the Wuhan lockdown, major travel restrictions, testing, etc
          • demonstrates that China's swift, effective response likely saved tens of millions of lives worldwide
          • How could China possibly justify a lockdown before human transmission was confirmed on Jan 19?
          • 3 weeks before, COVID was 27 patients in Wuhan, no deaths.  Imagine the international outrage if China had shut down factories, crashing stock markets without any scientific basis whatsoever?
      Conclusion-

      • Let's recall that China came under intense international criticism for acting as soon as it did
        • If China had acted before Jan19, shutting down factories, exports, crashing the world economy and then the science proved no human-to-human transmission, China would have suffered far more exposure to criticism, sanctions
        • China's 3 day political response to the science was remarkably swift
        • China should be lauded for its efficiency, not scapegoated for COVID-19's virulence
      • Thanks to Crocodile for this timely topic and
      • Thanks to VOTERS for their kind consideration
        • PLEASE VOTE CON
      Added:
      --> @oromagi
      Gg. This was a good debate.
      Instigator
      #20
      Added:
      --> @Crocodile, @Nikunj_sanghai, @fauxlaw
      Thanks, Nikunj & fauxlaw for voting
      Thanks croc- gg
      Contender
      #19
      Added:
      for me, Crocodile won this but it all comes down to what you see as true or not. this was a clash of truisms and facts, not debated opinions.
      #18
      Added:
      --> @fauxlaw
      *******************************************************************
      >Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: [Not Removed]
      >Points Awarded: 5 points Con
      >Reason for Decision: We'll try this once again, and I caution any detractors to review voting policy, as I will cite why I voted as I did from the policy. I appreciate Blamonkey for accepting my appeal against removal of my original vote.
      Argument: Points to Con. The significant bone of contention re: should/can/will, with "should" defined by pro in round 1, then the attempt by Pro to expand by can/should in round 2, was successfully rebutted by Con in all rounds, first by limiting should by demonstration that can or will were even possible. When an action cannot happen, its "should" capability is strangled, and can/will become mere talking points without effectivity, as Con argued through the balance of rounds. Further, pro's argument in round 1 that IHR's regulations require "communicate... timely... information" to WHO has no enforcement teeth because "timely" is not a measurable, as Con argued in round 1 rebuttal. I contend my original vote not only did not violate policy, but was a reasoned development based on the logic of "should" as defined by Pro, as opposed to "can" or "will." "Should" is limited by "can" simply because "can" defines the parameters, not "should." I should be able to exact an eye for an eye against my neighbor for killing my dog which left a package in my neighbor's front yard, but the law dictates both the nature and the timing of my ability to exact revenge. It is legally not up to me. Just so, as Con argued, international law lacks the means to allow "should" to occur. It is a skillful rebuttal by Con both by argument and sourcing. Pro never overcame the argument that the law prevails, even by its lack. Because there is no international law, as Con argued, "can" is removed from the table, rendering "should" disabled. From the3 voting policy: "Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole."
      Sources: Points to Con. Relative to my original vote on sourcing, pro's round 1 quote from “China's top political commission in charge of law and order" that “anyone who deliberately delays and hides the reporting of [virus] cases out of his or her own self-interest will be nailed on the pillar of shame for eternity" sounds convincing as if China is running upon its sword, but a little research into Pro's source for the quote finds that, 1. The source is South China Morning Post, a Hong Kong journal with which I am familiar, having logged much time in Hong Kong, 2. That the source is an opinion piece quoting a statement made by China's Central Political and Legal Affairs Commission [the commission to which Pro refers], 3 That the quote is actually out of Chang An Jian, China's official political propaganda vehicle, and 4. That the referenced "pillar of shame" is a protest sculpture on Hong Kong University's grounds, raised against Chinese aggression, and used cleverly by Chang An Jian by reverse psychology, thus weakening pro's source. That's credible sourcing??? Nope.
      From the voting policy: "Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate. Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support. Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's." This is what I have demonstrated in my vote explanation on sourcing.
      S&G: Both participant's s&g were good.
      Conduct: Both participants conducted themselves profesisonally.
      >Reason for Mod Action: The vote is justified per the Voting Policy guidelines.
      ************************************************************************
      #17
      Added:
      --> @blamonkey, @Ragnar, @christopher_best
      I again report Fauxlaw for cherrypicking sources in his vote to the extreme that he's basically ignored 90% of the sources used by Pro, in order to pick an opinionated piece Pro used.
      #16
      Added:
      I'll vote on this
      #15
      Added:
      --> @oromagi
      yessir quality debate.
      Instigator
      #14
      Added:
      --> @Crocodile
      I can't promise anything. I would be curious to see a debate just on if sovereign immunity should be absolute; my curiosity of this, will probably cause me to go down the rabbit hole reading that contention from both you and oromagi.
      #13
      Added:
      --> @Ragnar
      Can you vote on this debate?
      Instigator
      #12
      Added:
      --> @SupaDudz
      Could you vote?
      Instigator
      #11
      Added:
      --> @User_2006
      Could you vote?
      Instigator
      #10
      Added:
      --> @fauxlaw
      *******************************************************************
      >Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: [Removed]
      >Reason for Decision: Argument: The significant bone of contention re: should/can/will, with "should" defined by pro in round 1, then the attempt by Pro to expand by can/should in round 2, was successfully rebutted by Con in all rounds, first by limiting should by demonstration that can or will were even possible. When an action cannot happen, its "should" capability is strangled, and can/will become mere talking points without effectivity, as Con argued through the balance of rounds. Further, pro's argument in round 1 that IHR's regulations require "communicate... timely... information" to WHO has no enforcement teeth because "timely" is not a measurable, as Con argued in round 1 rebuttal. Points to con.
      Sources: Pro's sources were rebutted by more accurate sourcing by Con, particularly relative to the measure of the China response, with many of the points alleged by Pro's timeline. points to Con
      S&G Tie
      Conduct: Tie
      >Reason for Mod Action: Per the request of the voter. They want to add to the RFD.
      ************************************************************************
      #9
      Added:
      --> @RationalMadman
      Would you like to describe your research into these matters, since you have not voted?
      #8
      Added:
      Further, relative to my vote on sourcing, pro's round 1 quote from “China's top political commission in charge of law and order" that “anyone who deliberately delays and hides the reporting of [virus] cases out of his or her own self-interest will be nailed on the pillar of shame for eternity" sounds convincing as if China is running upon its sword, but a little research into Pro's source for the quote finds that, 1. the source is South China Morning Post, a Hong Kong journal with which I am familar, having logged much time in Hong Kong, 2. that the source is an opinion piece quoting a statement made by China's Central Political and Legal Affairs Commission [the commission to which Pro refers], 3 that the quote is actually out of Chang An Jian, China's official political propaganda vehicle, and 4. that the referenced "pillar of shame" is a protest sculpture on Hong Kong University's grounds, raised against Chinese aggression, and used cleverly by Chang An Jian by reverse psychology. That's credible sourcing??? Nope.
      If my vote is removed I will simply add these comments from posts #6, #7, that's fine. I will re-create the vote as is, and these items to it and re-post it.
      #7
      Added:
      I contend my vote not only did not violate policy, but was a reasoned development based on the logic of "should" as opposed to "can" or "will." "Should" is limited by "can" simply because "can" defines the parameters, not "should." I should be able to exact an eye for an eye against my neighbor for killing my dog which left a package in my neighbor's front yard, but the law dictates both the nature and the timing of my ability to exact revenge. It is legally not up to me. Just so, as Con argued, international law lacks the means to allow "should" to occur. It is a skillful rebuttal by Con both by argument and sourcing.
      #6
      #2
      Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
      Better arguments 3 points
      Better sources 2 points
      Better spelling and grammar 1 point
      Better conduct 1 point
      Reason:
      Great job on both sides
      Pro did a far amazing job than me defending this topic, but he repeated some of my mistakes, which CON exploited very easily, in instigating the topic itself the word "accountable" becomes very intangible and the argument made by CON against the word usage of "should" were more convincing than PRO. The entire arguments were from the beginning about the Chinese governments response which CON has defended, had PRO chosen to bring the wetmarkets and Chinese governments handling of them and effectively potrayed those points I would have sided with PRO. CON's defense was as strong as steel.
      Personally I find Chinese government a very questionable one with little regard to human rights and civil liberty PRO could have used those pretext to strengthen his arguments and stated all information coming from them is fabricated. Chinese have previously too resorted to this sort of stuff, the world is no stranger to it. For as it is now, on epidemic response CON's counters reign supreme. It really makes no sense to enforce lockdown without confirmation of human to human response.
      Sources: Both sides put so much effort on sources it would be criminal to rob either side of points on sources.
      Amazing debate.
      #1
      Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
      Better arguments 3 points
      Better sources 2 points
      Better spelling and grammar 1 point
      Better conduct 1 point
      Reason:
      We'll try this once again, and I caution any detractors to review voting policy, as I will cite why I voted as I did from the policy. I appreciate Blamonkey for accepting my appeal against removal of my original vote.
      Argument: Points to Con. The significant bone of contention re: should/can/will, with "should" defined by pro in round 1, then the attempt by Pro to expand by can/should in round 2, was successfully rebutted by Con in all rounds, first by limiting should by demonstration that can or will were even possible. When an action cannot happen, its "should" capability is strangled, and can/will become mere talking points without effectivity, as Con argued through the balance of rounds. Further, pro's argument in round 1 that IHR's regulations require "communicate... timely... information" to WHO has no enforcement teeth because "timely" is not a measurable, as Con argued in round 1 rebuttal. I contend my original vote not only did not violate policy, but was a reasoned development based on the logic of "should" as defined by Pro, as opposed to "can" or "will." "Should" is limited by "can" simply because "can" defines the parameters, not "should." I should be able to exact an eye for an eye against my neighbor for killing my dog which left a package in my neighbor's front yard, but the law dictates both the nature and the timing of my ability to exact revenge. It is legally not up to me. Just so, as Con argued, international law lacks the means to allow "should" to occur. It is a skillful rebuttal by Con both by argument and sourcing. Pro never overcame the argument that the law prevails, even by its lack. Because there is no international law, as Con argued, "can" is removed from the table, rendering "should" disabled. From the3 voting policy: "Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole."
      Sources: Points to Con. Relative to my original vote on sourcing, pro's round 1 quote from “China's top political commission in charge of law and order" that “anyone who deliberately delays and hides the reporting of [virus] cases out of his or her own self-interest will be nailed on the pillar of shame for eternity" sounds convincing as if China is running upon its sword, but a little research into Pro's source for the quote finds that, 1. The source is South China Morning Post, a Hong Kong journal with which I am familiar, having logged much time in Hong Kong, 2. That the source is an opinion piece quoting a statement made by China's Central Political and Legal Affairs Commission [the commission to which Pro refers], 3 That the quote is actually out of Chang An Jian, China's official political propaganda vehicle, and 4. That the referenced "pillar of shame" is a protest sculpture on Hong Kong University's grounds, raised against Chinese aggression, and used cleverly by Chang An Jian by reverse psychology, thus weakening pro's source. That's credible sourcing??? Nope.
      From the voting policy: "Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate. Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support. Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's." This is what I have demonstrated in my vote explanation on sourcing.
      S&G: Both participant's s&g were good.
      Conduct: Both participants conducted themselves profesisonally.