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.

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:

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.

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:

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.