RESOLVED: In the United States, the Stay-At-Home Orders Should Not Be Repealed Before the Pandemic Ends
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 8 votes and 6 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
Specifics: I will be arguing for Pro and my opponent for Con. We will both have exactly three days to post our arguments. Forfeiting twice will merit a loss. Conceding will merit a loss. Trolling will merit a loss. K'ing will merit a loss.
Debate Information: We will be debating about the states that have a lockdown not the states that don't.
- If the enemy applies more effective tactics, then the war will end sooner
- If the dealer provides better and good deals, then the product will sell out sooner
- If the sports team applies more effective strategies then the game will end sooner
Yes, I do not deny that the stay-at-home orders are extremely effective. In an ideal world, we would be able to stay home and wait for the disease to pass. However, this is not the case. We have an economy to think of as well as the people who would suffer if this economy were to collapse. If we stay at home for the next year and a half, which is the estimated time for a cure or vaccination, many small businesses and companies that cannot survive virtually would be gone. For example, our cruise lines would be financially destroyed, eliminating the thousands of jobs that were available. If we allow the economy to plummet as such, then the people will also suffer. Hundreds of thousands if not millions will plummet into poverty, falling into massive debt and financial trouble. Also, the previously known middle class would fall into the lower class category. The current lower class that has their heads above financial water will drown, and America's middle class will fall into the lower class. While they may have trust funds or saved money, our middle class as we know it would be destroyed, with them losing jobs and having to resort to using their trust funds. The upper class would also be hit, as they could lose millions off of the stock market and the fall of their corporations. Overall, if we stay at home, we may be able to combat the coronavirus but we would not be able to support our economy, possibly putting millions of Americans into a situation that would be considered as some, worse than death. We would lose our economy and spot as the number one country in the world in terms of stability.The virus would pass faster, yes, but at what cost. If we dig ourselves a financial hole by staying at home for at least a year and a half more, we may never come out of it. For example, people today still feel the effects of the Great Recession, with some losing their life savings and family businesses. We could be looking at something much worse than the Recession if we stay at home for the foreseeable future.
Every day we follow stay at home orders, someone loses a certain amount of money. At one point in the future, we will be losing so much each day that people would rather go out and risk their lives to keep their businesses above the water. In fact, many smaller restaurants and non-essential businesses are doing that now, going to work and opening their shops in desperation despite knowledge of the virus. When these people start losing enough, they will fall into a fate worse than death. They will be homeless, in poverty with no way out, and many other horrible fates that come with financial stress. This is worse than death, and we should open rather than forcing many to suffer this fate.
Sorry for the weird formatting but those are my points. We as a country have to choose between lives and our economy, and ultimately, the economy should be chosen for the listed reasons above.
My opponent misunderstands his own definitions. Repealing the stay-at-home orders does not mean people have to go out. If they are uncomfortable going outside, they can remain in lockdown. The people that are willing to accept the risk of their life in exchange for a "green piece of paper" should be free to go outside and accept the risk. I am in no way forcing people to go outside and catch the virus, they are free to do what they want.
My opponent also claims that a vaccine will be available in January 2021. First, we cannot rely on the CDC's estimated date because the CDC has proven to be untrustable and have followed their own agenda. It is not a safe assumption to trust the media on when a vaccination is available. Even if a vaccine does become available in January, it will be long before the masses can obtain this vaccination, creating herd immunity. The process of herd immunization could take several more months.
The economy is as much in our lives today as anything else, and it is essential to keep it running because, without it, we could be destroying more lives than we are "saving".