Instigator / Pro
6
1436
rating
22
debates
38.64%
won
Topic
#2069

China should be held accountable for COVID-19

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
2
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

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

oromagi
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
14
1922
rating
117
debates
97.44%
won
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.

-->
@oromagi

Gg. This was a good debate.

-->
@fauxlaw
@shadow_712
@Crocodile

Thanks, Nikunj & fauxlaw for voting
Thanks croc- gg

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.

-->
@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.
************************************************************************

-->
@blamonkey
@Barney
@MisterChris

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.

I'll vote on this

-->
@oromagi

yessir quality debate.

-->
@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.

-->
@Barney

Can you vote on this debate?

-->
@Vader

Could you vote?

-->
@User_2006

Could you vote?

-->
@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.
************************************************************************

-->
@RationalMadman

Would you like to describe your research into these matters, since you have not voted?

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.

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.

-->
@fauxlaw

Thanks for the input. I always appreciate if someone votes, even if it's against me.

-->
@blamonkey
@Barney
@MisterChris

I am admitting to reporting Fauxlaw's vote, the reason is due to the sources vote, not the Arguments, though I think that the Argument is barely formed at all.

-->
@Crocodile

Yes, I will vote, but it may take a couple of days to get to it. I remise I will do it.

-->
@fauxlaw

Could you vote on this debate?

bump