Instigator / Pro
7
1615
rating
16
debates
93.75%
won
Topic
#2077

RESOLVED: In the United States, the Stay-At-Home Orders Should Not Be Repealed Before the Pandemic Ends

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Winner
7
1

After 8 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

BearMan
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
1
1440
rating
6
debates
0.0%
won
Description

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.

-->
@RationalMadman

Favorite vote I've seen in awhile!

RationalMadman
11 hours ago
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Reason:
EricThanos tried to slap Bearman but he didn't know that Bearman is not from Marvel universe. Bearman has that girzzly grip that gone gripe ya.

-->
@fauxlaw

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:1; 1 point to Con.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.

This vote received a few reports, so going to give added commentary...
It addresses the main argument both side offered, which is the core thing any vote should do.
It does go against the presumptive winner, which is fine, that just means that it is eligible for moderation.
**************************************************

-->
@BearMan

FYI, attempting to impose rules in R1 is not binding.

-->
@fauxlaw

Two things:
1. The only category to which grading is required, is arguments. I don't quite want to say the others are for outliers, but they on average are tied and them being tied never needs to be spelled out (if arguments were tied, some justification would be needed, but to a lower standard than if awarding it to either side).
2. You are not required to obey the special rules from the description, but for future reference you have the option (and they're a good thing to mention when going against for the sake of seeming fair).

-->
@BearMan

A house is an apartment is a tent is a cave.

These are given different descriptive names, but they all can serve the same purpose of consequence, which is my voting decision support. But this is all nonsense because your sources include both stay-at-home AND social distancing as effective countermeasures, yet you do not allow for social distancing in your debate proposal. Why you entertain quarantine in your complaint about my vote is a smoke screen. My vote exposed your sources' allowance of social distancing while your argument separated from it.

-->
@fauxlaw

yes but they aren't the same. It has been proven again by a scholarly source. So I don' think my entire argument is invalid just because of that.

-->
@Crocodile

Can a debater countermand the rules of the site? Seems countermanding policy is itself a reason for discipline. Policy says "A full-forfeit debate is defined as a debate that has no argument presented by one side following the opening round, resulting in all subsequent rounds being forfeited." But Con had 2 argument rounds and 2 forfeit rounds. That meets the policy. You want to play rules, know them. Also, Pro only imposed waiving a round in round 1; not the time to do that.

-->
@BearMan

Because a law firm says they are not the same, you're going to buy that? Quarantine [defined by your source]: "...isolates an individual inside their own home or in a hospital." Stay-at-home is self-explanatory. Isn't the effect the same? It's a distinction without a difference. Lawyers. They'll argue anything, even against itself.

-->
@fauxlaw

" Forfeiting twice will merit a loss." It's from the rules of this debate. There's no way EricT would win.

-->
@Barney

I admit to reporting fauxlaw's vote. As EricT FF'd. There can be no way that he merits a win from this.

-->
@fauxlaw

Oh, btw quarantine and stay-at-home orders are different things.

https://forrestfirm.com/blog/stay-at-home-or-shelter-in-place-orders-are-not-the-same-thing-as-quarantine/

-->
@fauxlaw

Argument: Pro argued that stay-at-home was not the same thing as social distancing, then applied the rest of his argument, and sourcing, applying social distancing as the bar against which to measure, thereby undermining his own argument. Con argued that extended stay-at-home would collapse the economy; a far more valid argument.

Can you please explain what this means? Thanks!

Before I vote on this one, just want to point out [again] the uselessness of waiving rounds. If the debate is to be a 4-round debate, call it that, and stop this nonsense of waiving. It accomplishes northing, and no one to date has demonstrated successfully that it does. As it is, it is called a 5-round, and Pro has tossed one of them, and Con has tossed one of them, plus forfeited two more. However, since waiving is not really counted as a forfeit, I suppose the debate is live for both participants because more than half the five rounds have not been forfeited by either one, in spite of Pro declaring that less than half the rounds forfeit means a loss, which is not what the debate policy says. I'd consider both having lost conduct, but the format does not speak to deducting points; only giving them.

-->
@BearMan

I mean, I am Chinese but I actually agree with Crocodile. Constructed criticism is never bad.

-->
@User_2006

Nah. All croc talks about is China.

-->
@BearMan

Are you, perhaps, an Alt of Crocodile?

-->
@EricTbiggestfan

Okay

-->
@BearMan

erict was banned so he wont be responding

-->
@EricT

Whatever you say, mate.

-->
@oromagi

Agree wholeheartedly. That is why I am not very active on our forums.

-->
@RationalMadman
@User_2006

--> @User_2006
Firstly, yes they are, secondly Oromagi is less so and in my opinion he's not that good at mafia.

I agree and for roughly the same reasons I have trouble sustaining a squabble in the forums. In mafia and squabbles, the advantage is all in profligacy. It doesnot matter if what you say is unwarranted or irrelevant so long as you are constantly pursuing the last word, escalating every perceived slight and ignoring any valid ripostes. The thread and weight of real arguments gets lost in long games of what amounts to text pong and I just get so bored with it. I understand that I'm discounting the major activity on this site but text pong has never been much of an attraction for me.

-->
@User_2006

Firstly, yes they are, secondly Oromagi is less so and in my opinion he's not that good at mafia.

-->
@RationalMadman

Nope, Neither Oro nor Danielle was the type you mentioned. They are one of the best ones too.

-->
@Barney

Mafia isn't a game I hate, it's the crowd and type of people (manipulative, arrogant) who are attracted to it that I prefer to avoid. That's not at all a DART thing, it's a 'social game' thing. Whether it's survivor, big brother, mafia or something along those lines, the crowd are always majority cunning bullies who are unpleasant even to one another but especially to someone who is both very good at the game and unwilling to join the sheep they rule.

-->
@MisterChris

Taken from my pre-written debate:

A pandemic ends when, as stated by the New York Times, the disease is eradicated or when “people grow tired of panic mode and learn to live with a disease”. Essentially, it is either ended by medical data or sociopolitical processes.

-->
@BearMan

how are we defining the "end of the pandemic?"

-->
@RationalMadman

Fair enough. I genuinely wish you would get into games of Mafia.

bump

bump

-->
@Barney

If you were curious how I garner reads on people, you just word-for-word revealed that you're anger-driven in that post. I insert it into a mental profile that I have on you in my head and it transforms a puzzle-like web into a more developed and clearer formation.

-->
@BearMan

Good luck on this one. While I'm happy to give advice, I have too much else going on in my life right now (lame as this may be, I now pretty much only debate if something pisses me off).

If anyone is confused by the K rule, here's a guide: https://tiny.cc/Kritik

That said, as a voter I'm fine with states without lockdown being used as evidence for or against the benefits of said lockdown.

bump

-->
@RationalMadman

Updated it. Thanks.

-->
@RationalMadman

Shoot you got me.

-->
@BearMan

Is gradual repeal a K?

-->
@RationalMadman

Yeah I know.

-->
@BearMan

Gradually they should be repealed but US is on upswing of Covid-19 spread, not downswing (unlike all other highly developed nations).

-->
@RationalMadman

The same. Notice I said "current"

-->
@BearMan

How severe will it be enforced? No offence but other countries are already beginning to relax their lockdown rules, US is only starting to properly ramp theirs up.

-->
@RationalMadman
@Barney
@oromagi
@User_2006

Are you up for the challenge?